W2664 
183Z 


; 


M^HM 


CO 

Q- 

.2 

/? 

*; 

CO 

I 

*^, 

IE 

i 

*5j 

►"> 

Ol 

#W 

*s 

fc 

*o 

^s 

„ 

$ 

*— * 

fc 

a> 

o 

c 

w 

o 

bi) 

^T 

x»-* 

&H 

<t 

£ 

ta» 

o 

~a3 

Jtf 

Jz* 

E 

.<o 

<* 

M 

<o 

>>» 

& 

rt 

C/) 

& 

Pk 

3 

Ct 

% 

-a 

0) 

■*-• 
c 

8 

% 

r 

a> 
c/> 

• 

yfi 

CL 

55 

/Difft 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2011  with  funding  from 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


http://www.archive.org/details/dissertationons 


DISSERTATION 


ON   THE 


SCRIPTURAL    AUTHORITY, 


NATURE,  AND  USES, 


INFANT  BAPTISM, 


By  RALPH  ^VVARDLAW,   D.   D. 


jFfrst  American  32toftfon. 


BOSTON: 

PUBLISHED    BY    PEIRCE    AND    PARKER, 

No.  9  CornhiJl. 

NEW    YORK  :-  H.   C.  SLEIGHT. 

Clinton  Hall. 

1832. 


Art 

'■ . 
PREFACE. 


E. 


So  long  ago  as  the  year  1807,  T  published  "  Three  Lec- 
tures on  Romans  iv.  9 — 2">.  designed  chiefly  to  illustrate 
the  nature  of  the  Abrahamic  Covenant,  and  its  connec- 
tion with  Infant  Baptism  ,  with  an  Appendix,  on  the 
Mode  of  Baptism." — It  was  my  first  publication  :  and, 
after  the  lapse  of  seventeen  years,  I  have  seen  very  little 
reason  to  alter  or  to  modify  the  general  principles  of  that 
work. — A  Review  of  it  appeared,  in  the  end  of  the  same 
year,  from  the  pen  of  the  late  Mr.  Archibald  Maclean  of 
Edinburgh,  a  man  held  in  just  estimation,  not  by  his  own 
party  only,  but  by  all  who  knew  him,  for  natural  acute- 
ness  of  intellect,  close  application  to  the  study  of  the  scrip- 
tures, and  general  consistency  of  character.  I  was  satis- 
fied that  my  main  positions  were  unshaken  by  the  objec- 
tions of  counter-reasonings  of  the  reviewer;  and  the 
chief  consideration  that  prevented  me  from  then  reply- 
ing was,  the  time  that  it  would  necessarily  occupy,  which, 
I  thought,  might,  on  the  whole,  be  more  profitably  em- 
ployed. I  am  not  now  sure,  whether  this  was  a  correct 
judgment. 

A  desire  has  repeatedly  been  expressed  to  me  for  the 
republication  of  these  lectures.  I  could  not,  however, 
think  of  publishing  them  again  in  the  same  form.  The 
great  business  of  an  expositor,  I  am  fully  aware,  ought  to 
be,  to  give  a  clear  view  of  the  scope,  or  main  design,  of 
the  writer  whom  he  expounds,  and  to  show  how  his  rea- 
sonings establish,  and  his  illustrations  elucidate,  the  point 
of  which  he  treats.      All  matter  that  is  not  immediately 


IV  PREFACE. 

relevant  for  this  end,  ought  to  be  either  omitted  entirely, 
or  very  sparingly  introduced  ; — if  touched,  not  dwelt  up- 
on. The  reason  why  this  principle  was  departed  fioin  in 
the  lectures,  was  one  which  I  then  thought,  and  still 
think,  sufficient  to  justify  the  deviation.  It  is  obvious, 
that  the  same  principles,  which  a  writer  lays  down,  as  the 
foundation  of  the  conclusions  which  it  is  his  object  to 
establish,  may  often,  with  equal  fairness,  be  made  the  ba- 
sis of  other  conclusions,  besides  those  which  are  at  the 
time  in  his  view  ;  and  principles  settled  by  Divine  authori- 
ty it  is,  on  this  account,  as  well  as  for  the  sake  of  the  in- 
ferences actually  deduced  from  them,  of  the  highest  con- 
sequence to  ascertain.  We  then  have  at  least  determi- 
nate premises;  and  have  only  to  show  how  they  bear  us 
out  in  our  deductions.  Now,  it  may  happen,  that  at  the 
very  time  when  a  minister,  in  the  regular  course  of  ex- 
position, arrives  at  a  particular  passage,  the  minds  of  fel- 
low-christians,  in  his  own  religious  connections,  or  more 
extensively,  may  be  occupied  and  agitated  by  subjects 
which,  though  not  immediately  connected  with  the  doc- 
tine  which  it  is  the  writer's  direct  object  to  establish,  may 
yet  have  a  very  intimate  connection  with  the  facts  and 
principles  brought  forward  by  him  for  its  confirmation. 
In  such  circumstances,  it  is  surely  warrantable  for  that 
minister,  whilst  he  shows  how  these  principles  bear  upon 
the  writer's  immediate  object,  to  lay  hold  of  them  for  a 
separate  purpose,  and,  even,  at  some  length,  to  dwell  on 
the  particular  subject  respecting  which  he  f'els  it  to  be 
of  consequence  to  settle  the  minds  ot  his  hearers.  The 
only  proper  question,  in  such  a  case,  would  be,  whether 
the  principles  were  fairly  stated,  and  whether  the  conclu- 
sions from  them  were  legitimately  deduced.  Such  was 
precisely  the  state  of  things,  when  the  lectures  in  ques- 
tion were  delivered.  But  I  am  sensible,  that  the  same 
reason  which  justified,  the  introduction,  at  the  lime,  of 
discussions  on  the  Abrahamic  covenant  and  infant  bap- 
tism, to  a  length  so  disproportionate  in  illustrating  the 
fourth  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  would  hardly 
justify  the  republication  of  the  lectures  at  a  distant  peri- 
od, when  the  principles  can  be  taken  by  themselves,  and 
the  argument  separated  entirely  from  that  of  the  Epistle. 


PREFACE.  V 

I  have  been  led  to  make  these  remarks  by  an  observation 
of  Mr.  Maclean,  in  the  introduction  of*  his  review,  very 
much  fitted  to  prejudice  the  mind  of  his  reader, — namely, 
that  "  lie  finds  my  main  design  to  be,  to  support  infant 
baptism,  and  that  from  two  chapters,  (.lorn.  iv.  and  Gal. 
iii.)  where  it  is  never  once  mentioned,  i.or  does  it  appear 
in  the  least  degree  to  have  entered  into  the  mind  or  view  of 
the  sacred  writer." — But  Mr.  Maclean  does  not  accuse  me 
of  overlooking  the  object  of  the  apostle,  or  of  failing  to 
show  how  that  object  is  made  out  from  his  premises: — 
and  the  sole  question  with  him  ought  to  have  been, 
whether  the  same  premises  which  authorized  the  one 
conclusion,  were  or  were  not  legitimately  applied  to  the 
establishment  of  the  other. 

The  work  which  is  now  presented  to  the  public  may 
be  considered  as  a  substitute  for  that  part  of  the  former 
which  immediately  regarded  the  subject  of  the  Abrahamic 
covenant  and  baptism.  It  is,  however,  in  almost  all  re- 
spects, a  new  work.  The  discussions  are  cleared  from 
all  the  foreign  matter,  with  which  they  were  unavoidably 
associated  by  the  passages  on  which  the  lectures  were 
founded.  The  reasonings  are,  by  this  means,  rendered 
more  distinct  and  consecutive.  The  subject  is  treated 
more  at  large,  in  all  its  parts,  and  especially  in  some 
which  before  were  hardly,  if  at  all,  touched  upon.  To 
the  whole  train  of  argument  and  arrangement  has  been 
given,  such  as,  it  is  hoped,  may  render  it  plain  and  easily 
followed,  and  may  serve  to  free  the  subject  of  it  from 
some  portion  at  least  of  the  confusion  and  difficulty  in 
which,  to  not  a  lew  minds,  it  has  always  appeared  to  be 
involved.  Some  of  the  leading  objections,  moreover, 
have  been  met,  and,  to  my  own  satisfaction  at  least,  ex- 
posed— and  what  is  said,  in  the  third  section,  of  the  uses 
of  infant  baptism,  is  wholly  new. 

It  may  be  thought,  that  the  necessity  of  publishing  at 
all  was  superceded  by  the  late  able  work  of  my  esteemed 
frit ud  and  colleague,  Mr.  Ewingr.  The  larger  proportion  of 
his  Essay,  however,  as  the  circumstances  which  gave  rise 
to  it  might  have  led  us  to  anticipate,  relates  to  the  mode 
of  baptism  ;  and,  although  this  is  treated  with  a  measure 
of  originality,  and  of  classical  and  biblical  learning,  high- 


VI  PREFACE. 

ly  creditable  to  its  author, — there  still  seemed  to  he  room 
left  for  a  fuller  aud  more  systematic  discussion  of  the  oth- 
er great  branch  of  the  controversy, — the  sub;e«ts  of  the 
ordinance, — which   is   touched   in   the  Essay  indeed,  and 
touched  with  the   same  ability,  but  which  is  not  the  pro- 
fessed object  of  the  writer  to  treat  extensively.     This  part 
of  the  field    the   circumstances  1  ha*e  before  stated    had 
long  determined    me  to   occupy  anew,  previously  to   the 
publication  of  Mr.  Ewing's  work  ;  and  my  determination 
was  quickened  to  action  by  the  appearance  of  an  antago- 
nist to  him,  and  to  the  late  Dr.  Dwig'nt,  and  to  myself.      I 
refer  to  the  work  of  the  Rev.  F.  A.  Cox,  of  Hackney,  put 
forth  with  the  ponderous  and  appaling  title — "On  Baptism  : 
chiefly  in  Reply  to  the  Etymological  Positions  of  the  Rev. 
Greville  Ewing,  in  his  '  Essay  on  Haptism  :'     the  Po'ernic 
Discussions  of  the   Rev.   Timothy  Dwight,  S.  T.  D.,  L. 
L.  D.,  in  his  Work,  entitled,  '  Theology  ;'    aud  the  Infer- 
ential Reasonings  of  the  Rev.  Ralph  VVardlaw,  D.  D.  in 
his  Lectures  on    the  Abrahamic  Covenant." — In  some  of 
the  advertisements  of  this  work,  the  first  part  of  the  title, 
I  observe,  has  undergone  an  alteration  ,    and,  instead   of 
the  "  etymological  positions,*'  we  have  the  "  etymological 
novelties"  o(  Mr.  Ewing  :  and  it  is  surely,  in  the  annals  of 
controversy,  a  somewhat  curious  circumstance,   that   an 
opponent  should    fjrmally  announce,  in    his  title-page,  a 
reply  to  precisely  that  part  of  the  work  he  sets  himself  to 
oppose,  which  its  author  had  declared  to  be   unconnected 
with  the  course  and  conclusiveness  of  his  argument:  for 
thus  Mr.  Ewing  had   expressed    himself: — "  Such    is   my 
attempt  to  analyze  @uitto)  and  its  related   words.      If  any 
shali  reject  it   (I  dare  say  many  will);    in  that  case,  they 
will  of  course  disallow  my  theory  for  illustrating  the  ori- 
gin, and  the  connection  of  the  various  meanings  of  those 
words.       But  they  will  not   be   able,  thereby,  to  set  aside 
the  meanings  themselves.      These  must  still  be  tried  by 
the  force  of  the  examples  which  may  be  produced  in  sup- 
port of  each  by  itself.      Although  I  shall,  in  what  follows, 
refer  my  theory  to  the   derivation  of  the   terms,  for  the 
sake  of  showing   how  well  it  tallies  with  the   application 
of  them  in  the  examples  in  which  they  occur  ;  I  shall,  in 
no  case,  use  an  argument,  in  support  of  their  meanings 


PREFACE.  Vll 

which  shall  rest  on  that  theory." — To  announce  a  formal 
reply  to  what  an  author  has  thus  previously  intimated  to 
be  unessential  to  his  argument,  a  speculation  of  which 
entire  omission  leaves  its  force  untouched  ; — to  produce 
upon  the  reader's  mind,  by  the  very  phraseology  of  a  title- 
page,  the  impression,  that  that  is  the  pith  and  substance 
of  a  work,  and  what  chiefly  calls  for  notice  and  exposure, 
which  the  writer  himself  announces  lie  will  not  make  the 
basis  of  a  single  proof; — and  then,  to  confirm  this  false 
impression  and  prejudice,  by  applying  ridicule,  as  the 
test  of  truth,  to  what,  even  were  it  overturned,  would  not, 
by  its  removal,  affect,  in  the  slightest  degree,  a  single 
conclusion  ; — may  be  a  convenient  ruse  dt  guerre, — but 
it  is  neither  ingenuous  nor  manly.  It  is  very  easy  how- 
ever, and  that  adds  to  the  convenience. —  VVhatever  di- 
versity of  opinion  may  subsist  on  some  unessential  points, 
Mr.  Cox's  assault  has,  in  my  judgment,  left  the  main  po- 
sitions, on  which  Mr.  Ewings  argument  rests  in  their  lull 
strength. 

Although  the  appearance  of  Mr.  Cox's  strictures  has- 
tened the  fulfilment  of  a  previous  intention,  the  following 
pages  are  not  to  be  considered  as  a  reply  to  his  work. 
They  are  not  a  formal  reply  to  anyone.  I  follow  the 
tram  of  ntty  own  argument,  and  take  notice  of  the  objec- 
tions of  others,  as  they  come  in  my  way.  And  I  trust  it 
will  be  found,  I  have  not  shrunk  from  meeting  my  oppo- 
nents (or  rather,  let  me  say,  the  opponents,  the  conscien- 
tious opponents,  of  the  views  I  advocate) — fully  and  fair- 
ly, in  the  main  points  of  their  strength. —  I  have  had  oc- 
casion, once  or  twice,  to  allude  to  the  strictures  of  the 
Rev.  Mr.  Birt,  of  Birmingham,  on  a  sermon  by  my  excel- 
lent friend,  the  Rev.  H.  F.  Burder,  of  Hackney,  a  neigh- 
bor and  fellow  laborer  of  Mr.  Cox; — and  1  gladly  em- 
brace the  opportunity  of  saying,  that  although  there  may 
be  one  or  two  minor  statements  in  that  sermon  in  which 
I  may  not  thoroughly  acquiesce,  it  appears  to  me  distin- 
guished by  the  clearness  and  cogency  and  comprehensive 
brevity  of  its  reasonings,  as  well  as  by  tne  piety  and 
Christian  meekness  of  its  spirit;  and  to  remain  Imle,  if 
tt  all  affected,  in  its  general  principles,  by  the  animad- 
versions of  his  opponent. — I  have  now  and  then  referred 


Viii  PREFACE. 

to,  and  quoted,  other  publications.  But  indeed  these  are 
now,  on  both  sides,' so  numerous,  that  I  have  found  it  bet- 
ter not  to  cumber  myself  by  looking  into  many,  and  so 
exposing  myself  to  the  temptation  of  introducing  matter, 
either  quite  extraneous,  or  but  remotely  connected  with 
my  argument. 

It  has  been  my  endeavor  to  adhere  to  the  Latin  maxim, 
"  Suaviter  in  modo,  fortiter  in  re,"  familiarly  rendered  in 
English  "  Soft  words  and  hard  arguments."  Whether  I 
have  succeeded  or  failed,  the  reader  must  judge.  If  oc- 
casionally I  may  have  expressed  myself  (of  which,  how- 
ever, I  am  not  conscious)  with  becoming  asperity,  may  I 
find  forgiveness  of  Him,  who  has  said,  "  The  servant  of 
the  Lord  must  not  strive,  but  be  gentle  unto  all  men." — 
To  his  blessing  I  humbly  commend  this  part  of  my  labors, 
in  the  conviction, — a  conviction  that  has  gained  strength 
by  every  new  examination  of  the  subject, — that  the  cause 
is  his,  and  that  its  opponents,  however  plausible  their 
scheme  may  be  rendered,  (and  it  is  admitted,  in  some  of 
its  points,  to  be  susceptible  of  great  plausibility)  have  not 
a  foot-breadth  of  solid  scriptural  ground  to  stand  upon. 

R.  W. 

Glasgow,  >  * 

lZth  January,  1825.  ] 


is 


*6 


INTRODUCTORY 

OBSERVATIONS. 


Some  are  disposed  to  deprecate  all  such  discussions  as 
the  one  on  which  I  am  now  entering,  under  the  common 
designation  of  unprofitable  controversy.  That  it  is  con- 
troversy, I  admit; — that  it  is  unprofitable  controversy,  I 
deny.  If  I  thought  it  so,  I  trust  I  should  have  grace  to 
abstain  from  it.  But  I  think  otherwise,  for  the  following 
reasons  : — 

In  the  first  place  :  As  a  psedobaptist,  I  am  accustomed, 
along  with  my  brethren  of  the  persuasion,  to  administer 
the  ordinance  of  baptism,  as  occasions  present  themselves, 
both  privately  and  publicly,  to  the  infant  children  of  be- 
lievers;  and  we  are  countenanced  in  so  doing  by  our 
churches  and  congregations.  Now  every  thing  that  we 
do,  as  professed  subjects  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  ought  to  be 
done,  not  blindly,  or  in  mere  conformity  to  custom,  but 
from  a  scriptural  and  enlightened  conviction  of  duty.  To 
call  any  institution  an  ordinance  of  God,  and  persist  in 
adherence  to  it,  without  knowing  either  its  import,  or  the 
reason  of  observing  it,  is  unworthy  a  professor  of  that 
religion,  which  enjoins  nothing  but  what  is  "reasonable 
service." 

Secondly:  In  consequence  of  the  universality  of  the 
practice  of  infant  baptism,  and  the  consequent  frequency 
of  the  abuse  and  prostitution  of  the  ordinance,  believers 
themselves  are  in  no  small  danger  of  attending  to  it  as  a 
mere  matter  of  course,  without  due  consideration,  either 
of  the  nature  of  the  rite,  the  grounds  on  which  the  ad- 
ministration of  it  to  their  children  rests,  or  the  parental 
obligations,  so  deep  and  so  solemn,  that  are  inseparably 
connected  with  it. 

Thirdly  :  I  see  no  reason  whatever,  why  paedobaptists 
should  feel  the  slightest  disposition  to  evade  the  question, 
or  the  most  distant  fear, — although  on  both  sides  there 
may  be  minute  points  of  difficulty, — to  meet  it  fully,  fairly, 
and  openly,  in  all  its  great  general  bearings. — There  has 
2 


X  INTRODUCTORY    OBSERVATIONS 

sometimes  appeared  to  me,  to  be  too  much,  on  the  part  of 
paedobaptists,  of  a  disposition  to  stand  upon  the  defensive 
merely  ; — too  much  of  the  mere  natation  of  the  conclu- 
siveness of  arguments  used  on  the  side  of  their  opponents, 
and  too  little  of  the  direct  enforcement  of  positive  evi- 
dence on  their  own  ; — too  much  of  the  shield,  and  too 
little  of  the  sword: — I  mean,  of  course,  "  the  sword  of 
the  Spirit." 

Fourthly:  There  are  too  many,  especially  of  the  young, 
who,  in  the  outset  of  their  Christian  profession,  have  not 
their  minds  directed  at  all  to  the  subject.  It  is  an  unex- 
amined point.  And  these  persons,  when,  in  this  state  of 
want  of  knowledge  and  information,  they  happen  to  fall 
in  with  a  baptist  friend,  a  baptist  book,  or  a  baptist  argu- 
ment, feel  themselves  unprepared  to  meet  what  is  new 
and  startling;  their  minds  are  in  danger  of  being  imme- 
diately unsettled,  and  of  hastily  adopting  what  is  presented 
to  them  wilh  no  little  plausibility,  and  possibly  too  with 
much  imposing  confidence. — I  invite  the  attention  of  my 
young  Christian  readers, — not  fearing,  that  if  we  are  only 
enabled  to  come  to  the  subject  without  the  heat  of  party 
opinionativeness,  in  a  cool,  composed,  and  reasonable 
frame  of  spirit,  and  especially  in  humble  dependence  on 
Divine  teaching,  we  shall  be  led  into  all  truth,  and  estab- 
lished in  the  due  observance  of  every  scriptural  institu- 
tion. 

Fifthly  :  The  discussion  does  not  exclusively  regard 
a  particular  instituted  observance ;  it  involves  principles 
and  topics,  such  as  are  very  closely  connected  with  the 
right  understanding  of  a  large  proportion  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament scriptures,  and  of  those  parts  of  the  New  of  which 
the  reasonings  and  illustrations  are  founded  upon  the  Old; 
and  also  with  just  views  of  the  Divine  procedure  towards 
the  church,  from  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  its  history. 
— This  must  have  been  apparent  to  every  person  of  the 
slightest  discernment,  that  has  bestowed  any  attention 
upon  the  controversy.  There  is  a  certain  style  of  speak- 
ing and  writing  regarding  the  Old  and  New  Dispensations, 
and  the  two  revelations  respectively  connected  with  them, 
by  which,  in  general,  the  supporters  of  the  opposite  sides 
of  it  may  be  readily  distinguished.  And  this  gives  an 
importance  to  the  argument,  beyond  its  direct  conclusions 
respecting  the  single  ordinance  which  forms  its  more  im- 
mediate subject. 


INTRODUCTORY    OBSERVATIONS.  XI 

Lastly  :  I  am  satisfied,  that  the  argument  respecting 
the  validity  of  infant  baptism  is  far  from  being  so  difficult 
and  formidable,  as,  from  the  numberiess  pamphlets  and 
volumes  that  have  been  written  upon  either  side  of  the 
question,  many  are  ready,  without  further  inquiry,  to  sup- 
pose. They  shrink  from  approaching  the  subject,  under 
the  apprehension,  (not  altogether  unnatural,)  that  if  such 
a  mass  of  controversy  must  be  gone  through  in  order  to 
bring  their  minds  to  a  settlement,  it  is  a  hopeless  case. 
They  will  not  venture  into  the  flood  ;  it  is  frothy  and  tur- 
bulent, and  troublesome  to  pass,  and  they  have  little  cer- 
tainty of  finding  solid  footing  beyond  it.  They  heave  a 
desponding  sigh;  and,  as  the  easiest  at  least,  if  not  the 
best  and  safest  way  to  dispose  of  the  subject,  they  dismiss 
it  with  the  trite  and  indolent  remark,  that,  "much,  it 
seems,  may  be  said  on  both  sides." — And  it  is  true,  that 
a  vast  deal  has  been  said  on  both  sides  ;  much  more,  in 
ray  apprehension,  than  enough  :  much  that  is  needlessly 
abstruse, — much  that  is  very  irreJevant, — much  that  has 
only  involved  the  combatants  in  clouds  of  "  learned  dust," 
which  has  served  to  blind  the  eyes  of  common  and  unlet- 
tered men,  and  almost  at  times,  I  fear,  to  blind  their  own. 

Nothing  can  be  easier,  on  such  a  subject,  especially  now, 
when  we  have  so  much  criticism  about  it  made  up  by  oth- 
ers and  ready  to  our  hand,  than  even  for  the  veriest  scio- 
list to  make  a  mighty  parade  of  learning  . — nothing  I 
say,  can  be  easier, — unless  indeed  it  be,  speaking  with 
great  positiveness  and  dogmatism — a  figure  of  speech, 
'which,  on  all  subjects,  has  been  too  much  resorted  to,  as 
a  substitute  for  the  lack  of  argument. — On  no  subject,  it 
is  granted, — and  especially,  on  no  subject  that  involves 
the  obligations  of  conscience  towards  God,  are  we  to  al- 
low ourselves  to  be  determined  by  the  weight  of  names 
and  of  human  authority.  "  He  that  judgeth  us  is  the 
Lord  ;"  and  "  What  saith  the  Lord?"  ought  to  be  our  sole 
inquiry. — But  although  our  opinions  and  practice  are  not 
to  be  decided  by  names;  yet  the  manner  of  our  treating  any 
subject  not  only  may  be,  but  ought  to  be,  not  a  little  affected 
by  them.  And  when  1  think  of  the  names  of  high  eminence, 
both  tor  intellect  and  for  piety,  both  for  scholarship  and  for 
integrity,  that  are  ranged  on  both  sides  of  the  present  con- 
troversy, I  cannot  but  consider  pertness  and  dogmatism  as 
indications,  not  of  vigor  of  judgment,  but  of  the  imbecil- 


Xll  INTRODUCTORY    OBSERVATIONS. 

ity  of  self-conceit. — If,  through  infirmity  and  corruption, 
I  should,  in  any  part  of  my  argument,  be  found  guilty  of 
these  evils,  or  of  the  appearance  of  them,  1  have  thus  pro- 
nounced a  previous  verdict  against  myself. — My  aim,  how- 
ever shall  be,  to  avoid  them,  and  to  state  my  views  and  rea- 
sonings, although  with  decision  and  firmness,  (because  to 
this  I  do  believe  them,  bona  fide,  to  be  entitled,)  yet  with 
becoming  simplicity,  self-diffidence,  and  charity. 

I  am  not  about  to  bewilder  the  reader's  mind  by  multi- 
farious and  protracted  discussions, — by  entering  at  large 
into  all  the  topics  that  have  been  forced  into  connection 
with  this  subject.  It  has  long  been  my  conviction,  from 
observation  of  the  writings  of  others,  and  from  any  little 
experience  I  have  myself  had  in  controversy,  that  in  con- 
ducting an  argument,  the  principal  difficulty  consists,  not 
in  finding  what  to  say,  but  in  knowing  what  not  to  say. 
The  resolution  to  say  all  that  can  be  said,  has  often  led 
to  the  introduction  of  a  great  deal  of  matter,  that,  if  not 
altogether  irrelevant,  is  yet  but  remotely  and  by  slight  as- 
sociation connected  with  the  point  in  debate,  and,  being 
redundant,  is  enfeebling  to  the  conclusion  aimed  at. 
There  may  be  self-denial  at  times  in  using  the  prun- 
ing-knife ;  but  it  is  necessary  to  a  vigorous  fructifi- 
cation. A  skilful  gardener,  who  wishes  his  tree  to  bear 
well,  will  lop  off  freely  its  green  wood,  and  never  think  of 
encumbering  the  wall  by  training  in  every  shoot  that 
sprouts  in  the  luxuriance  of  vegetation.  He  may  some- 
times be  at  a  loss,  which  to  cut,  and  which  to  spare;  he 
must  exercise  his  discretion  :  but  he  will  never  hesitate 
to  cut,  when  to  spare  promises  no  produce.  Branches 
that  yield  no  fruit  themselves  will  mar  the  productiveness 
of  others. — The  present  argument  has  assumed  much  of 
the  appearance  of  intricate  complexity  and  difficulty:  for 
which  both  sides  of  it  are  in  some  degree  answerable 
My  present  object  is  to  simplify, — to  divest  the  subject, 
as  much  as  possible,  of  its  multiplied  encumbrances,  and 
to  present  it  in  an  easy  intelligible  form,  and  with  as 
much  brevity  as  its  own  nature,  and  the  previous  state  of 
the  controversy,  will  admit. 

One  ground  of  objection  I  must  anticipate,  and  en- 
deavor to  remove,  because  it  is  frequently  and  confidently 
urged  against  all  inferential  conclusions,  and  all  reason- 
ings indeed  together,  on  such  a  subject.  It  is  alledged, 
that  the  case  is  one  which  does  not  admit  of  a  process  q£ 


INTRODUCTORY    OBSERVATIONS.  Xlll 

reasoning  ; — one  with  which  argument  and  inference  have 
nothing  to  do.  The  ordinance  of  baptism,  both  in  itself 
and  in  regard  to  the  subjects  of  it,  is  a  positive  institute  ; 
and  a  positive  institute  cannot  be  established  by  reason- 
ing, but  requires,  to  warrant  its  observance,  explicit  terms 
of  institution. 

In  reply  to  this  view  of  the  matter,  let  it  be  considered, 
in  the  first  place; — If  any  thing  can  be  made  out  from 
the  word  of  God,  as  having  Divine  authority  to  support  it, 
it  is  surely  our  duty  to  obey,  whatever  may  have  been  the 
mode  of  arriving  at  the  conclusion.  Only  make  the  sup- 
position that  we  can  show  such  authority  for  any  prac- 
tice ; — we  certainly  can  never  consider  ourselves  as  at 
liberty  to  decline  compliance,  because  the  point  has  not 
been  made  out  exactly  in  the  way  which  we  had  pre- 
viously determined  to  be  the  only  legitimate  and  right 
way.  This  ought  to  be  self-evident.  The  man  who 
questions  it,  (with  whatever  assurance  he  may  express 
himself,)  betrays  a  secret  want  of  confidence  in  his  own 
views.  He  hypothetically  admits  that  the  practice  has 
the  support  of  divine  authority  ;  and  yet  declines  compli- 
ance, because  the  intimation  of  God's  will  has  not  been 
conveyed  in  a  manner  according  with  his  taste,  and  his 
preconceptions  of  propriety.  He  prefers  his  own  judg- 
ment to  that  of  God,  and  presumptuously  refuses  the  sub- 
stance of  authority  on  account  of  the  mode  in  which  its 
requirements  has  been  expressed  !  The  simple  and  only 
question  is  What  saith  the  scripture  ?  not  In  what  way 
does  the  scripture  say  it  ?  It  is  not  ours,  in  this  or  in  any 
thing  else,  to  prescribe  to  God. 

Secondly  :  Those  who  make  the  objection  may  be  fair- 
ly called  to  consider,  how  far  the  principle  of  it,  if  con- 
sistently applied  and  followed  out,  will  necessarily  carry 
them. — I  am  not  going  to  take  up  the  ground  which  by 
some  paedobaptists  has  been  assumed,  that,  on  the  princi- 
ple of  the  objection,  we  have  no  direct  and  explicit  au- 
thority for  the  admission  of  women  to  the  Lord's  table  ; — 
because  this  has  always  appeared  to  me  ground  hardly  con- 
sistent with  manly  fairness  and  candor,  and  calculated  to 
enfeeble  rather  than  to  strengthen,  to  expose  to  a  sneer, 
rather  than  recommend  to  acceptance,  the  cause  it  is 
meant  to  support.  I  have  in  my  view  a  case  of  much  high- 
er crder,  not  inferior  in  importance  to  the  question  of  in- 
fant-baptism itself; — I  mean  the  sanctiji cation  of  the  first 
*2 


XIV  INTRODUCTORY    OBSERVATIONS. 

day  of  the  week  as  the  Christian  sabbath. — The  observance 
of  a  sabbath, — the  consecration  of  a  part  of  our  time  to  the 
worship  of  God  and  to  spiritual  purposes,  is  not  a  merely 
positive,  but  a  moral  duty.  But  the  proportion  of  time, 
and  the  particular  day,  are  positive.  It  seems,  however, 
impossible  to  ascertain  the  change  of  the  day  from  the 
seventh  to  the  first,  and  the  consecration  of  the  whole  day 
to  the  Lord,  without  a  process  of  induction,  in  many  re- 
spects resembling  that  which  is  employed  to  vindicate  the 
authority  of  paedobaptism.  I  am  myself,  it  is  true,  of 
opinion,  with  some  eminent  critics  and  expositors,  that 
in  the  ninth  and  tenth  verses  of  the  fourth  chapter  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  we  have  direct  intimation  and 
express  authority  for  the  change  : — "  There  remaineth 
therefore  a  sabbatism,*  (or  the  keeping  of  a  sabbath)  to 
the  people  of  God  :  for  he  that  is  entered  into  his  rest,  he 
also  hath  ceased  from  his  own  works  as  God  did  from 
his."  But  the  establishment  of  this  depends  upon  a  pro- 
cess of  reasoning  ;  of  reasoning  too,  which  has  never  yet 
occurred  to  the  minds,  or  settled  the  convictions,  of  the 
great  majority  of  Christians  :  and  I  am  free  to  say,  that  al- 
though I  am  perfectly  satisfied  as  to  the  meaning  of  the 
passage,  as  an  intended  and  explicit  declaration  of  the 
change  of  the  sabbath,  yet,  had  it  not  been  accompanied 
with  the  commentary  of  facts  in  the  recorded  practice  of 
apostolic  times,  we  could  not  with  confidence  have  found- 
ed our  observance  of  the  first  day  of  the  week  on  its  exclu- 
sive authority.  Even  from  the  facts  alluded  to,  we  can 
only  ascertain  that  on  that  d;iy  the  disciples  were  accus- 
tomed to  meet  together  for  the  worship  of  God,  and  the 
other  sacred  exercises  of  Christian  fellowship.  But  the 
sanctifi cation  of  the  entire  day,  as  a  day  of  "  holy  resting" 
from  secular  engagements,  and  of  spiritual  occupation  and 
preparation  for  eternity,  must  be  made  out  on  other 
grounds.  That  it  can  be  made  out,  and  that  most  satis- 
factorily, I  am  thoroughly  convinced  ;  and  I  tremble  for 
the  interests  of  personal  and  social  religion,  in  the  indi- 
vidual mind,  and  in  the  Christian  society,  where  this  con- 

*The  word  in  the  original  of  this  -verse,  rendered  hy  our  trans- 
lators rest,  is  <T'x&(i>j.Ti7y.oc,  being-  different  trorn  the  word  so  transla- 
ted throughout  the  whole  of  the  preceding-  and  subsequent  context, 
— which  is  avxTrxuTt;.  Into  the  illustration  of  this  interesting  sub- 
ject, or  the  discussion  of  the  controversies  connected  with  it,  I 
cannot  enter  here. 


INTRODUCTORY    OBSERVATIONS.  XV 

viction  has  begun  to  give  way.  Yet  I  am  persuaded  that 
no  antipaedobaptist  can  set  about  proving  the  obligation 
of  the  sabbath,  without  adopting  principles  of  reasoning, 
if  not  identically  the  same,  certainly  very  closely  analo- 
gous to  those  which  he  is  accustomed  to  controvert,  as 
inadmissible,  when  applied  in  support  of  infant  baptism. 

Thirdly  :  1  hope  to  be  able  immediately  to  show,  that 
the  requisition,  on  the  part  of  our  baptist  brethren,  of  a 
positive  precept  for  our  practice,  is  unfair  ;  and  that  we 
are  rather  entitled  to  require  such  explicit  authority  from 
them.  If  we  can  succeed  in  establishing  the  previous  ex- 
istence of  the  connexion  of  children  with  their  parents, 
under  the  same  "  covenant  of  promise"  with  that  which 
constitutes  the  ground  of  fellowship  in  the  Christian 
church  ; — if,  I  say,  we  can  succeed  in  this,  then  we  have 
a  title  to  demand  an  explicit  statute  of  repeal.  Explicit 
authority  for  relinquishing  a.  practice,  is  quite  as  indispen- 
sable as  explicit  authority  for  commencing  one.  But  more 
of  this  by  and  by. 

I  must  still  further  premise,  because  on  all  controvert- 
ed topics  I  feel  the  essential  benefit  of  clearing  my  ground 
as  to  the  principles  of  reasoning; — that  the  question  {5 
not  at  all  about  adult  baptism,  or  about  the  necessity,  to 
the  baptism  of  adults,  of  a  profession  of  the  faith.  On 
this,  baptists  and  psedobaptists  are  of  one  mind.  When, 
therefore,  the  former  adduce,  in  opposition  to  infant  bap- 
tism, those  passages  of  the  New  Testament  in  which  the 
subject  is  the  baptism  of  adults,  and  from  them  insist  on 
the  universal  necessity  of  understanding  and  faith,  on  the 
part  of  the  recipients  of  the  ordinance,  to  its  legitimate 
administration,  they  do  nothing  at  all  to  the  purpose. 
They  are  guilty  of  a  sophism.  They  bring  infants  into 
their  conclusion,  whilst  they  are  not  in  the  premises. 
The  illusion  is  very  much  of  the  same  kind  with  one 
which  abounds  in  the  writings  of  Unitarians,  who  hive  an 
inveterate  habit  of  adducing  passages  to  prove  that  Christ 
is  not  God,  which  only  prove  that  he  is  man  ; — as  if  to  prove 
his  humanity,  (the  point  in  which  we  noree  with  them,  and 
which  we  are  quite  as  desirous  to  establish  as  themselves,) 
were  to  disprove  his  divinity,  (the  point  in  which  we  dif- 
fer from  them,  and  which  is  not  in  the  least  degree  affect- 
ed by  the  evidence  of  his  real  humanity.)  Antipoedohap- 
tists  seem  to  be  chargeable  with  the  sn.me  description  of 
fallacy,  when  they  think  to  disprove  infant   baptism   by 


XVI  INTRODUCTORY  OBSERVATIONS. 

proving  adult  baptism.  Instead  of  establishing  their  own 
view  of  the  subject  on  which  we  differ  from  them,  they 
only  establish  (a  thing  quite  unnecessary)  a  point  on 
which  we  are  perfectly  agrend. — This  observation  nar- 
rows the  limits  of  the  field  of  argument;  bringing  the 
subject  of  dispute  (which  is  always  very  desirable)  into 
smaller  compass. — No  one,  I  trust,  will  take  groundless 
offence  at  my  having  named  a  class  of  theologians  whom 
I  consider  as  subverters  of  the  gospel  of  Christ,  in  con- 
nection with  those  whom,  notwithstanding  our  differences 
in  sentiment  and  practice,  I  esteem,  and  love,  and  honor, 
as  brethren  in  the  faith.  I  have  not  compared  the  men — 
God  forbid !  I  have  not  compared  their  views  of  divine 
truth.  All  that  I  have  done  has  been,  to  point  out  the 
nature  of  one  fallacy  in  argument,  by  comparing  it  with 
another  of  a  simi-lar  description. 

I  have  only  further  to  observe,  that,  if  the  general  views 
which  I  am  about  to  present  on  this  subject  shall  be  fairly 
established  from  scripture,  it  is  foolish  to  allow  our  minds 
to  be  easily  startled  and  shaken  by  particular  difficulties 
which  may  be  suggested  and  urged,  as  to  what  would  be 
right  practice  in  certain  supposed  cases.  Nothing  can 
be  easier  than  thus  to  perplex  and  puzzle  the  mind  ;  and 
the  mournfully  prevalent  abuse  of  the  practice  of  infant 
baptism  has  given  rise  to  cases  of  apparent  difficulty,  re- 
specting which  there  may  be  hesitation  and  diversity  of 
opinion,  even  amongst  those  who  are  of  one  mind  as  to 
leading  principles.  Were  it  a  becoming  mode  of  argu- 
ing, there  are  puzzles  to  be  found  for  baptists,  as  well  a& 
psedobaptists  ;  although  it  may  readily  be  admitted,,  with- 
out the  smallest  disparagement  to  the  cause  of  the  latter, 
that  the  abuse  just  referred  to  has  given  their  brethren 
who  are  opposed  to  them,  no  inconsiderable  advantage  for 
the  invention  of  casuistical  questions. 

That  indiscriminate  admission  to  the  ordinances  of 
Christ  which  is  involved  in  the  very  idea  of  a  national  re- 
ligion, has  produced,  or  at  least  maintained,  a  very  gen- 
eral ignorance,  or  gross  misunderstanding,  of  their  true 
nature  : — and  I  would  entreat  any  whose  minds  may  have 
been  startled  on  the  subject  of  infant  baptism  by  the  gre- 
vious  prostitution  and  abuse  of  it,  and  the  various  absurd 
notions  entertained  respecting  it,  to  consider,  that  the 
other  ordinance  has  been  equally  abused  and  prostituted  ; 
and  that  to  suffer  this,  in  either  case,,  to  shake  their  con- 


INTRODUCTORY    OBSERVATIONS.  XV11 

victions  and  unsettle  their  practice,  is  the  indication  of  a 
weak  mind,  in  which  feeling  has  the  ascendency  over 
judgment,  and  which  is  incapable  of  discriminating  be- 
tween the  precepts  of  God  and  the  corruptions  of  them  by 
men.  The  possibility,  or  even  the  existence,  of  particu- 
lar cases  of  difficulty  should  never  be  allowed  to  lake  our 
minds  off  from  the  great  general  principles,  when  these 
have  been  satisfactorily  established  from  the  word  of  God. 
There  are  few  of  the  doctrines  of  that  word,  however 
clearly  revealed,  to  which  objections  have  not  occasionally 
been  offered  that  may  perplex  our  minds  and  "  give  us 
pause  :" — but  are  we  at  once  to  renounce  the  faith,  be- 
cause, on  some  of  its  articles,  a  puzzling  question  may  be 
put  to  us  by  a  subtle  adversary  ? 

Our  baptist  brethren  are  abundantly  ready  to  impute 
our  views  and  practice  to  the  power  of  educational  prej- 
udice, and  of  prevailing  custom,  which,  when  once  intro- 
duced, goes  on  without  consideration  or  inquiry, — and  to 
assume,  with  rather  more  than  enough  at  times  of  a  happy- 
self-complacency,  the  certain  rectitude  of  their  principles, 
— laying  them  down  as  settled  points,  and  in,  conversation, 
familiarly  adducing  the  sentiments  of  those  who  differ 
from  them,  amongst  their  common-places  of  illustration, 
when  speaking  of  the  inveteracy  of  early  prepossessions 
and  habitual  associations  of  ideas,  and  "astonished  with 
an  exceeding  great  astonishment"  at  the  dimness  which 
on  this  subject  rests  upon  the  vision  of  minds  that  are  oth- 
erwise clear-sighted  and  intelligent.  "  My  persuasion  is," 
says  Mr.  Cox,  "  that  the  popular  fading  is  theirs,  the  ar- 
gument ours.  If  an  evidence  of  the  latter  were  requisite, 
it  might  in  part  be  deduced  from  the  striking  facts,  that 
not  only  have  the  best  paedobaptist  writers  made  us  repeat- 
ed and  most  important  concessions,  while  many,  if  not  a 
majority,  of  their  living  teachers,  constantly  admit  one 
half  at  least  of  our  arguments  for  the  mode  of  baptism  : 
but  their  churches  contain  vast  numbers  of  theoretic  bap- 
tists, who  have  discernment  enough  to  appreciate  the  force 
of  evidence,  but  not  piety  enough  to  pursue  the  path  of 
duty."*  Now  this,  it  will  not  be  denied,  is  somewhat 
provoking.  That  the  "  popular  feeling"  is  ours,  we  do 
not  deny  ;  that  in  a  vast  number  of  instances  it  is  ignor- 
ant/;/ ours,  we  believe  and  regret;  while  the  circumstan- 
ces in  which  paedobaptism  has  been  placed  leave  us  at  no 

*  Pref.  to  his  Reply  to  Ewinj,  Dwi^ht  and  Wardlasv. 


XVlll  INTRODUCTORY    OBSERVATIONS. 

loss  to  account  for  the  fact.  But  that  we  have  none  of  the 
argument,  we  cannot  quite  so  readily  concede  ;  and  we 
feel  ourselves  warranted  to  say,  that  the  reasoning  of  Mr. 
Cox.  to  which  the  preface  is  prefixed  that  contains  the 
preceding  extract,  ought  to  have  been  of  a  much  firmer, 
more  coherent,  and  more  conclusive  texture,  to  have  war- 
ranted this  lofty  style.  As  to  the  Christian  charity  of  the 
allegation  in  the  close  of  the  extract,  1  leave  the  reader  to 
judge  of  it  ;  simply  reminding  Mr.  Cox,  that  the  charity 
which  Paul  so  beautifully  eulogises  has  for  one  of  its  fea- 
tures, that  it  "  thinketh  no  evil." — That  there  may  in  our 
churches  be  some  such  hypocrites  as  he  describes,  is  very 
possible  ; — and  let  them  take  the  reproof,  and  act  ac- 
cordingly :  but  his  "  vast  numbers"  only  show  us,  that 
there  are  other  figures  besides  arithmetical  ones,  by  which 
the  process  of  multiplication  can  be  effected. — We  cer- 
tainly are  not  quite  ready  to  submit  to  the  alternative 
which  is  here  imposed  upon  us,  by  which  the  whole  mul- 
titude of  pasdobaptist  professors  is  divided  into  two  class- 
es,— those  who  have  discernment  enough  to  appreciate 
the  force  of  evidence,  but  not  piety  enough  to  pursue  the 
path  of  duty," — and  those  who  have  "  piety  enougb  to 
pursue  the  path  of  duty,  but  not  discernment  enough  to 
appreciate  the  force  of  evidence."  We  have  the  presump- 
tion to  fancy,  that  a  person  may  have  both  discernment 
and  piety,  and  yet  be  a  psedobaptist. — We  desire,  how- 
ever, to  be  sensible  of  our  danger.  It  is  perfectly  right 
that  we  should  be  reminded  of  it.  We  are  in  danger  of 
doing,  without  thought,  what  our  fore-fathers  have  done 
before  us.  Dissenters  from  established  articles  of  faith, 
and  nonconformists  to  established  usages,  are  generally 
better  acquainted  with  their  principles  than  those  from 
whom  they  differ.  They  are  bound  to  assign  a  reason  for 
leaving  the  beaten  track  ;  whilst  those  who  follow  it  are 
apt  to  think  enough  that  it  is  beaten,  and  to  move  indo- 
lently forward.  But  the  danger  is  not  confined  to  one 
side.  \\\  proportion  to  the  respective  numbers  of  baptist 
and  psedobaptht  families ,  perhaps  there  may  be  found  as 
many  who  hold  their  views  from  education,  in  the  one 
communion,  as  in  the  other.  And  moreover,  while  the 
deceitfulness  of  our  hearts  should  put  us  on  our  guard, 
on  the  one  hand,  against  adhering  to  any  practice  from 
the  mere  force  of  custom  ;  it  ought,  on  the  other,  to  make 
us  jealous  of  the  charms  of  novelty  lest  we  should  too 
readily  renounce  a  principle  of  aq  observance,  from  fond- 


INTRODUCTORY    OBSERVATIONS.  XIX 

ness  of  change,  or   from  the   secret,    though  unavowed 
wish,  to  obtain  a  reputation  for  unusual  candor. 

Baptists  and  paedobaptists  ought  surely  to  yield  to  each 
other  the  claim  of  mutual  sincerity.  The  refusal  of  this, 
while  it  springs  from  that  self-sufficient  confidence  in  our 
own  judgment,  which  questions  the  possibility  of  others 
not  seeing  as  we  see,  is,  at  the  same  time,  highly  incon- 
sistent with  the  charity  before  referred  to,  "  which  think- 
eth  no  evil."  And  whilst  the  suspicion  itself  harbored  in 
the  mind,  is  a  violation  of  the  Saviour's  law  of  love  ;  the 
expression  of  such  suspicion,  in  words  or  in  conduct, 
tends  to  provoke  a  temper  not  less  opposed  to  the  spirit 
of  that  law,  the  passion  of  proud  resentment  and  indig- 
nant disdain. — Surely  fellow-christians  know,  how  little 
need  there  is  to  stir  one  another's  corruption.  They  sin 
deeply  against  Christ  when  they  do  so.  And  all  expres- 
sions of  contempt  and  bitterness  have  this  effect,  as  well 
as  the  insinuated  suspicion  of  insincerity.  The  whole  of 
such  treatment,  besides,  has  the  tendency  to  frustrate  the 
very  end  which,  in  all  our  discussions,  ought  to  be  kept  in 
view  :  for  its  effect  is,  to  shut  the  eyes  against  the  light 
of  truth,  and  to  summon  up  into  action  every  principle 
that  can  resist  conviction.  "  No  doubt  ye  are  the  people, 
and  wisdom  shall  die  with  yon  ;  but  I  have  understanding 
as  well  as  you,  I  am  not  inferior  to  you,"* — is  the  lan- 
guage which  all  such  treatment,  and  especially  the  dis- 
play of  self-sufficiency  and  scorn,  naturally  prompts  us, 
with  a  return  of  similar  feelings,  to  employ.  And  there 
can  be  no  state  of  mind  more  unfavorable  than  this  to  the 
discovery  and  reception  of  truth. 

Thinking  ourselves  right,  and  thinking  those  who  dif- 
fer from  us  wrong,  are  expressions  of  equivalent  import : 
and  if  we  feel  the  spirit  of  genuine  brotherly  love,  we  can- 
not but  be  desirous  that  our  fellow-christiansshould  discern 
and  relinquish  what  are,  in  our  apprehension,  their  errors. 
But  let  us  beware  of  putting  any  thing  in  the  room  of 
Christ.  Let  us  beware  of  refusing  to  acknowledge,  in 
the  character  of  "  brethren  beloved,"  any  who  give  evi- 
dence that  "  Christ  has  received  them."  To  a  believer's 
mind,  there  is  something  inexpressibly  awful,  in  the  idea  of 
his  affections  being  confined  w  ithin  narrower  limits  than  the 
love  of  Jesus  ; — of  any  consideration  being  a  bar  against 
admission  into  his  heart,  that  does  not  exclude  from  the 

*  Job  xii.  2,  3. 


XX  INTRODUCTORY    OBSERVATIONS. 

heart  of  bis  Divine  Master ; — of  any  being  refused  a  part 
in  his  prayer  for  the  household  of  faith,  who  are  subjects 
of  the  Saviour's  intercession  within  the  vail ! 

Pitiably  dreary  must  be  the  mind  of  that  man,  who  can 
look  round  on  the  wide  world,  and  count  his  dozen  or 
his  score,  whom  alone  he  can  salute  as  brethren,  or  expect 
to  accompany  to  heaven! — Far  from  me  and  from  my 
Christian  friends  be  that  self-sufficient  bigotry,  which 
freezes  the  fountain  of  love,  and  keeps  the  heart  cold  un- 
der the  melting  beams  of  the  sun  of  righteousness  ! — 
While  we  seek  the  Spirit  of  Christ  for  the  discernment 
of  truth  and  duty,  and  for  enabling  us,  meekly,  but  firm- 
ly, to  adhere  to  what  we  deem  his  revealed  will  ;  let  us, 
on  the  point  before  us,  and  on  other  similar  particulars, 
bear  with  diversity  of  judgment  in  those  who  "  hold  the 
the  head,"  and  who  give  evidence,  in  their  general  char- 
acter, that  they  do  not  resist  or  trifle  with  the  authority  of 
the  same  Lord — "  both  theirs  and  ours." 

"  Grace  be  with  all  them  that  love  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  in  sincerity  !" — whose  love  to  him  is  not  the 
faithless  profession  of  lying  lips,  nor  the  lukewarm  fic- 
kleness of  a  heart  divided  between  him  and  the  world, — 
but  unfeigned,  supreme,  and  constant ; — regarding  its  ob- 
ject, in  his  true  character,  as  the  Divine  and  only  Saviour  ; 
and  evincing  its  reality  by  a  life  of  holy  obedience  and  un- 
reserved submission  to  his  will,  by  a  desire  to  know  and 
to  follow,  in  every  thing,  the  light  of  his  word  ! 

Under  the  influence  of  such  feelings  as  these,  I  desire 
to  pursue  the  present  discussion.  I  shall  divide  my  ar- 
gument into  three  general  heads,  and  shall  allot  to  each 
a  distinct  section  :— r- 

I.  The  divinely  instituted  practice,  previously  to  the 
New  Testament  dispensation,  and  the  absence  of  all  ev- 
idence authorizing  a  departure  from  that  practice  under  it. 

II.  Evidence  of  the  fact,  that,  instead  of  such  depar- 
ture being  authorized,  the  children  of  converts  to  the 
faith  of  the  gospel  were  actually  baptized  along  with  their 
parents,  in  the  time  of  the  apostles  : — 

III.  The  important  truths  and  duties  which  the  bap- 
tism of  infants  exhibits,  and  impresses  upon  our  minds; 
and  the  perfect  consistency  of  the  administration  of  this 
ordinance  to  them  with  all  that  the  Bible  teaches  us  re- 
specting them,  as  subjects  of  salvation,  and  of  the  kingdom 
of  heaven. 


SECTION    I. 


In  this  section,  we  are  to  consider  the  divinely  in- 
stituted PRACTICE  PREVIOUSLY  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 
DISPENSATION,  AND  THE  ABSENCE  OF  ALL  EVIDENCE 
AUTHORIZING  A  DEPARTURE  FROM  THIS  PRACTICE  UNDER 
IT. 

We  state  our  argument  thus  : — Before  the  coming  of 
Christ,  the  covenant  of  grace  had  been  revealed ;  and 
under  that  covenant  there  existed  a  divinely  instituted 
connection  between  children  and  their  parents  ;  the  sign 
and  seal  of  the  blessings  of  the  covenant  was,  by  divine 
appointment,  administered  to  children  ;  and  there  can  be 
produced  no  satisfactory  evidence  of  this  connection  having 
been  done  away. 

It  is  not  my  purpose  to  enter  very  largely  into  the 
wide  field  which  these  propositions,  directly  and  indirectly, 
embrace.  I  shall  endeavor,  as  briefly  as  I  can,  to  estab- 
lish the  following  points  : — 1.  That  the  covenant  of  pro- 
mise made  by  God  with  Abraham  was,  in  substance,  the 
new  covenant, — the  covenant  of  grace, — the  same  cove- 
nant which,  under  a  fuller,  and  clearer,  and  simpler  dis- 
covery of  it,  forms  now  the  basis  of  the  Christian  church  : 
— and,  2.  That  the  ordinance  of  circumcision,  was  con- 
nected with  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  in  this  view  of  it 

1.  Of  the  first  of  these  two  propositions,  that  the  cove- 
nant made  with  Abraham  was  the  gospel  covenant,  the 
proof  is,  or  ought  to  be,  very  short.  It  is  the  plain  and 
positive  declaration  of  an  inspired  apostle.  The  reader 
will  find  it  in  the  third  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Gala- 
2 


14  SECTION    I. 

tians,  the  17th  and  18th  verses  : — "  And  this  I  say,  that 
the  covenant  which  was  confirmed  before  of  God  in  Christ, 
the  law,  which  was  four  hundred  and  thirty  years  after, 
cannot  disannul,  that  it  should  make  the  promise  of  God 
of  no  effect.  For  if  the  inheritance  be  of  the  law,  it  is  no 
more  of  promise  ;  but  God  gave  it  to  Abraham  by  pro- 
mise."— I  have  never,  I  confess,  been  able  to  fancy  to 
myself  anything  plainer  than  this;  and  though  much  has 
been  said  and  written  calculated  to  involve  the  subject  in 
mystery,  here  it  stands  as  plain  as  ever.  The  covenant 
spoken  of  in  these  words  toas  not  the  law,  or  Sinatic  cove- 
nant;  for  it  existed  four  hundred  and  thirty  years  before 
it,  and  was  not  at  all  disannulled  or  set  aside  by  it: — it 
was  a  covenant  of  promise,  as  opposed,  in  the  apostle's 
reasoning,  to  anything  resting  on  the  conditions  of  law  : 
— it  was  "  confirmed  before  of  God  in  Christ," — an  ex- 
pression which,  translate  it  as  you  will,  can  be  naturally 
applied  to  no  other  covenant  but  one  : — and  believers  in 
Christ,  under  the  New  Testament  dispensation,  are  de- 
clared, in  the  concluding  verse  of  the  same  chapter,  to 
be  "  heirs  according  to  the  promise"  of  that  covenant. 
Take  the  three  expressions,  in  the  16th,  the  18th,  and 
the  29th  verses  in  connection,  (for  there  is  nothing  in 
the  intermediate  statement  and  reasonings  to  disjoin  them, 
but  only  links  that  bring  them  together)  and  this  will  be 
strikingly  apparent : — "  Now  to  Abraham  and  his  seed 
were  the  promises  made  :" — "  If  the  inheritance  be  of  the 
law,  it  is  no  more  of  promise;  but  God  gave  it  to  Abra- 
ham by  promise  :" — "  And  if  ye  be  Christ's,  then  are  ye 
Abraham's  seed,  and  heirs  according  to  the  'promise." — 
Heirs  of  what?  Of  the  inheritance  promised,  in  the 
covenant,  to  Abraham  and  his  seed.  The  covenant, 
therefore,  contained  the  promise  of  the  heavenly  or  eter- 
nal inheritance.  But  it  contained  no  such  thing,  except 
as  couched  under  the  promise  of  the  earthly,  the  tempo- 
ral, the  typical  inheritance.  Both  the  earthly  and  the 
heavenly,  then,  were  the  subjects  of  promise  ;  and  of  both 
alike  it  is  affirmed,  that  they  were  obtained  and  held,  not 
by  law,  but  by  faith  in  the  promise.  Had  it  been  other- 
wise, the  type  would  have  failed  in  one  of  the  most  im- 
portant and  interesting  points  of  resemblance. — The  same 


SECTION    I.  15 

Jesson  is  taught  with  no  less  plainness  and  decision,  in 
Rom.  iv.  13,  14.  "  For  the  promise,  that  he  should  be 
the  heir  of  the  world,  was  not  to  Abraham,  or  to  his  seed, 
through  the  law,  but  through  the  righteousnes  of  Faith. 
For  if  they  who  are  of  the  law  be  heirs,  faith  is  made 
void,  and  the  promise  made  of  none  effect." — It  is  need- 
less to  enlarge  on  the  particular  phrase  here  used,  "  the 
promise  that  he  should  be  the  heir  of  the  world."  It 
holds  the  same  place  in  the  reasoning  in  this  passage, 
that  the  simpler  designation  "  the  inheritance"  docs,  in 
the  epistle  to  the  Galatians.  It  will  be  admitted  to  in- 
clude the  promise  of  the  earthly  Canaan; — for  the  literal 
terms  of  the  covenant  specified  it,  and  it  alone  ;  and  it 
were  strange  if  the  inheritance  specifically  mentioned  in 
the  terms  of  the  covenant,  should  not  be  meant  at  all 
when  the  promise  of  the  covenant  is  spoken  of :  and  there 
can  be  as  little  doubt  that  in  the  apostle's  reasoning  the 
heavenly  inheritance  is  assumed  to  be  also  included,  since 
it  is  respecting  it  that  his  inferences  and  conclusions  are 
drawn. — The  covenant,  then,  which  was  "  confirmed  of 
God  in  Christ," — which  preceded  the  law  by  430  years, 
and  was  entirely  independent  of  it, — which  was  found- 
ed in  free  promise,  in  opposition  to  legal  conditions, — 
and  which  contained  amongst  its  promises  that  of  the 
heavenly  inheritance,  of  which  New  Testament  believers 
are  heirs  ; — this  covenant  must  be  in  substance  the 
same  with  the  gospel,  or  the  covenant  of  grace. 

2.  Our  second  proposition,  and  one  of  primary  impor- 
tance in  the  present  discussion,  is,  that  the  rite  of  cir- 
cumcision was  connected  with  this  covenant,  as  a  cove- 
nant of  spiritual  blessings.  I  have  dwelt  the  more  briefly 
on  the  first,  because  the  discussion  of  the  second  will  serve 
further  to  illustrate  and  confirm  it. 

This  second  proposition  appears  to  me  as  evident,  as 
the  terms  of  a  plain  historical  narrative  can  make  it.  The 
following  is  the  account  of  the  matter  in  the  book  of  Gen- 
esis : — "  And  when  Abram  was  ninety  years  old  and  nine, 
the  Lord  appeared  to  Abram,  and  said  unto  him,  I  am 
the  Almighty  God  ;  walk  before  me,  and  be  thou  perfect. 
And  I  will  make  my  covenant  between  me  and  thee,  and 
will  multiply  thee  exceedingly.  And  Abram  fell  on  his 
face  :  and  God   talked   with   him,  saying,  As  for  me,  be- 


16  SECTION    I. 

hold,  my  covenant  is  with  thee,  and  thou  shalt  be  a  father 
of  many  nations.  Neither  shall  thy  name  any  more  be 
called  Abram ;  but  thy  name  shall  be  Abraham  :  for  a 
father  of  many  nations  have  I  made  thee.  And  I  will 
make  thee  exceeding  fruitful,  and  I  will  make  nations 
of  thee,  and  kings  shall  come  out  of  thee.  And  I  will 
establish  my  covenant  between  me  and  thee,  and  thy 
seed  after  thee,  in  their  generations,  for  an  everlasting 
covenant,  to  be  a  God  unto  thee,  and  to  thy  seed  after 
thee.  And  I  will  give  unto  thee,  and  to  thy  seed  after 
thee,  the  land  wherein  thou  art  a  stranger,  all  the  land  of 
Canaan,  for  an  everlasting  possession  ;  and  I  will  be  their 
God.  And  God  said  unto  Abraham,  Thou  shalt  keep  my 
covenant  therefore,  thou,  and  thy  seed  after  thee,  in  their 
generations.  This  is  my  covenant,  which  ye  shall  keep 
between  me  and  you,  and  thy  seed  after  thee  ;  Every 
man-child  among  you  shall  be  circumcised.  And  ye  shall 
circumcise  the  flesh  of  your  foreskin  ;  and  it  shall  be  a 
token  of  the  covenant  betwixt  me  and  you."  Gen.  xvii. 
1—11. 

JSuch  are  the  terms  of  the  covenant  to  which  the  ordi- 
nance of  circumcision  was  annexed,  and  which  we  affirm 
to  be  in  substance  the  covenant  of  grace. — There  are  two 
theories  of  explanation,  by  which  our  baptist  brethren 
have  attempted  to  evade  the  conclusion  to  which  this 
would  lead.  To  each  of  these  I  must  beg  the  reader's 
attention. 

I.  The  first  of  the  two,  and  the  more  ordinary  one,  is 
that  which  alleges,  that  the  covenant  made  with  Abraham 
consisted  properly  of  two  distinct  covenants,  the  one  a 
covenant  of  temporal  promises,  the  other  of  spiritual; 
the  former  having  reference  to  the  natural,  and  the  latter 
to  the  spiritual  seed  of  Abraham;  and  that  it  was  with 
the  former,  and  not  with  the  latter,  that  circumcision  was 
connected. 

On  this  representation  of  the  case  let  it  be  observed, 

In  the  first  place,  that  no  such  distinction  appears  on 
thejace  of  the  narrative.  Circumcision  is  enjoined, 'as 
the  token  of  -'  the  covenant,"  considered  as  comprehend^ 
ing  all  the  blessings  enumerated  as  pertaining  to  it.  It  is 
not  said,  that  circumcision   was  to  be  the  token  of  that 


SECTION    I.  17 

part  of  the  covenant,  that  engaged  for  temporal  blessings 
to  Abraham's  fleshy  seed  ;  but  of  the  covenant  throughout, 
as  exhibited  in  the  above  passage.  There  is  nothing 
whatever  in  the  simple  statement  of  the  history,  not  even 
the  most  remote  insinuation,  that  warrants  the  introduc- 
tion of  the  distinction  in  question. 

Secondly:  No  such  distinction  is  any  where  discerni- 
ble in  the  apostle's  reasoning.  It  is  neither  directly  made, 
nor  even  incidentally  alluded  to.  The  blessings  of  the 
covenant  in  general,  all  its  blessings,  temporal  and  spirit- 
ual, and  especially  the  two  inheritances,  the  earthly  and 
the  heavenly,  the  typical  and  the  typified,  are  there  re- 
presented as  alike  given  by  promise,  as  obtained  and  held 
by  the  same  seed,  on  the  same  ground.  Gal.  ii;.  15,  16. 
"Brethren,  I  speak  after  the  manner  of  men  :  though  it 
be  but  a  man's  covenant,  vet,  if  it  be  confirmed,  no  man 
disannulled,  or  addeth  thereto.  Now  to  Abraham  and 
his  seed  were  the  promises  made  :  he  saith  not,  And  to 
seeds,  as  of  many,  but  as  of  one,  and  to  thy  seed,  which  is 
Christ." — What  we  have  at  present  to  notice  is,  not  the 
promises  themselves,  or  the  seed  to  whom  they  were  made, 
but  the  simple  fact,  stated  in  terms  the  most  plain,  and 
unequivocal,  that  "  the  promises"  of  the  covenant,  without 
any  hinted  discrimination,  were  made  to  the  same  seed  on 
the  same  ground. 

Thirdly  :  The  rite  of  circumcision  itself  is  admitted  by 
our  baptist  brethren  in  general,  to  be  significant  of  spir- 
itual blessings  : — who,  indeed,  that  attentively  reads 
either  Old  or  New  Testament,  can  question  it?  It  is  sig- 
nificant, according  to  a  writer  on  that  side  of  the  contro- 
versy, of  "  cleansing  from  sin" — and  "not  only  of  the 
purity  of  moral  holiness,  but  also  of  the  cleansing  from 
the  guilt  of  sin  in  justification."  And  agreeably  to  this 
spiritual  import  of  the  rite,  we  so  frequently  read  of  the 
"  circumcision  of  the  heart,"  with  other  equivalent 
phrases  ;  which  the  apostle  finely  explains,  when  he  says, 
"  He  is  not  a  Jew  who  is  one  outwardly,  neither  is  that 
circumcision  which  is  outward  in  the  flesh ;  but  he  is  a 
Jew  who  is  one  inwardly,  and  circumcision  is  that  of  the 
heart,  in  the  spirit  and  not  in  the  letter  ;  whose  praise  is 
not  of  men,  but  of  God." — Now  it  is  not  easy  to  perceive, 
2* 


18  SECTION    I. 

with  what  propriety,  or  consistency,  a  sign,  admitted  to 
be  significant  of  the  highest  spiritual  blessings,  should  be 
made  the  seal,  or  the  token,  of  a  covenant  of  temporal 
promises  and  temporal  blessings  alone. — Consistency 
seems  to  require,  either  that  the  spiritual  signification  of 
circumcision  should  be  given  up,  or  that  the  covenant,  of 
which  it  was  the  appointed  token,  should  be  allowed  to 
have  contained  spiritual  as  well  as  temporal  promises. 

Fourthly  :  Circumcision  is  most  expressly  pronounced 
by  the  apostle,  to  have  been  a  sign  and  a  seal  of  spiritual 
blessings,  and  especially  of  that  first  blessing  of  the  gos- 
pel covenant,  justification  by  faith: — "  Abraham,"  says 
he,  "  received  the  sign  of  circumcision,  a  seal  of  the 
righteousness  of  the  faith  which  he  had  being  yet  uncir- 
cumcised  ;  that  he  might  be  the  father  of  all  them  that 
believe,  though  they  be  not  circumcised,  that  righteous- 
ness might  be  imputed  unto  them  also  :" — the  meaning 
of  which  words  evidently  is,  not  that  the  sign  of  circum- 
cision was  to  Abraham  the  seal  of  his  own  personal  jus- 
tification,— for  this  would  be  incompatible  with  subse- 
quent trial,  and  with  his  "  giving  diligence,"  like  other 
believers, '*' to  make  his  calling  and  election  sure," — inas- 
much as  it  is  impossible  to  arrive  at  a  greater  degree  of 
certainty,  than  that  which  is  given  by  the  sealed  testimo- 
ny of  God  ; — but  rather,  that  it  was  the  seal  of  that  cove- 
nant, according  to  whose  provisions,  all  sinners,  believing 
as  he  believed,  were,  like  him,  to  be  justified  by  faith. — 
To  this  covenant,  according  to  the  apostle,  circumcision 
was  annexed. 

Fifthly  :  The  temporal  half  of  the  covenant  is  suppos- 
ed, by  those  who  hold  this  distinction,  to  have  been  the 
same  with  the  law  or  Sinai  Covenant,  which  was  entered 
into  430  years  after  with  the  people  of  Israel,  the  natural 
descendants  of  Abraham. — Now  I  must  beg  the  reader  to 
observe,  how  greatly  this  view  mars  the  force,  and  invali- 
dates the  conclusiveness,  of  the  apostle's  argument,  with 
regard  to  the  ground  of  Abraham's  justification. — His 
leading  design,  in  those  parts  of  his  epistles  to  the  Ro- 
mans and  to  the  Galatians  where  this  subject  is  treated 
of,  is  to  prove,  for  the  establishment  of  Jewish  and  Gen- 
tile believers,  for  the  conviction  of  his  unbelieving  coun- 


SECTION    I.  19 

trymen,  and  for  the  refutation  of  false  teachers,  the  doc- 
trine of  justification  by  grace,  as  having  been,  from  the 
beginning,  the  doctrine  of  the  word  of  God.  He  selects, 
as  an  instance  to  his  purpose,  the  case  of  Abraham.  He 
shows  that  this  patriarch,  in  whom  the  Jews  were  wont 
to  glory,  was  himself  justified,  not  by  the  law,  but  on  the 
footing  of  a  covenant  which  was  made  four  hundred  and 
thirty  years  belore  it.  Now,  if  this  covenant  be  consider- 
ed as  entirely  distinct  from  the  law,  the  argument  is  per- 
spicuous and  conclusive.  But  it  requires  no  great  meas- 
ure of  penetration  to  perceive,  how  much  its  force  and  de- 
cisiveness are  impaired  by  the  view  which  I  am  opposing; 
according  to  which,  the  law,  instead  of  being  430  years 
after  this  covenant,  and  altogether  distinct  from  it,  was  in 
fact  co-eval  with  it,  and  formed  one  of  its  branches.  I 
appeal  to  every  candid  and  discerning  mind,  if  this  does 
not  introduce  confusion  and  feebleness  into  the  apostle's 
reasoning.  Surely,  without  some  further  explanations 
and  distinctions,  which  he  has  not  thought  it  necessary 
to  introduce,  it  cannot  be  deemed  a  very  appropriate  or 
satisfactory  inference, — that  Abraham  could  not  be  justi- 
fied by  the  law,  because  he  was  justified  on  the  footing  of 
a  covenant  of  which  the  law  was  apart. 

II.  The  second  of  the  two  theories  of  explanation,  by 
which  our  baptist  brethren  parry  the  conclusion,  deduci- 
ble  from  the  annexation  of  the  rite  of  circumcision  to  a 
covenant  of  spiritual  promises  and  blessings,  is,  distin- 
guishing the  different  appearances  of  God  to  Abraham, 
recorded,  respectively,  in  the  twelfth,  the  fifteenth,  and 
the  seventeenth  chapters  of  the  book  of  Genesis,  and  re- 
presenting them  as  having  been,  not  repetitions  of  the 
same  covenant,  in  different  forms,  under  different  circum- 
stances, and  with  different  degrees  of  enlargement  and 
particularity  of  detail,  but  so  many  distinct  covenants. — 
That  which  was  made  first,  and  which  is  contained  in  the 
twelfth  chapter,  is  conceived  to  be  the  one  referred  to  in 
the  apostle's  reasoning,  as  having  been  430  years  before 
the  law,  because,  upon  calculation,  this  time  corresponds 
with  the  date  of  it,  and,  consequently,  of  it  only.  This  is 
admitted  to  be  the  gospel  covenant,  containing  the  specific 
promise,  "  In  thee   shall  all  the  families  of  the  earth  be 


20  SECTION    I. 

blessed."  That,  on  the  contrary,  of  which  we  have  so 
particular  an  account  in  the  seventeenth  chapter,  is  con- 
ceived to  be  a  covenant  of  temporal  blessings  only,  and 
to  bear  relation  solely  to  the  fleshly  seed  or  natural  off- 
spring of  Abraham.  To  this  covenant,  it  is  alleged, 
circumcision  was  annexed,  and  not  to  the  former ;  and 
it  is  it  that  is  denominated  "the  covenant  of  circumcis- 
ion." 

This  is  the  view  adopted  by  the  late  Mr.  Archibald 
Maclean  in  his  Review  of  my  Lectures  on  the  Abraham- 
ic  Covenant.  In  his  previous  publications,  he  had  avow- 
ed and  argued  upon  the  other.  Whether,  when  he  adopt- 
ed this  new  theory,  he  had  at  all  felt  his  former  ground 
insecure,  I  will  not  presume  to  say.  But  although  Mr. 
Cox,  in  his  late  Treatise,  pronounces  the  Review  a  "  mas- 
terly performance,"  and  adopts,  on  the  subject  now  before 
us,  the  ground  on  which  it  proceeds,  it  does,  I  confess, 
appear  to  me  to  be  ground  far  less  tenable  than  even  the 
former.     If  the  former  was  sand,  this  is  quicksand. 

The  following  is  the  brief  record  of  the  transaction  in 
the  twelfth  chapter  :  "  Now  the  Lord  had  said  unto 
Abram,  get  thee  out  of  thy  country,  and  from  thy  kindred, 
and  from  thy  father's  house,  unto  a  land  that  I  will  show 
thee  :  and  I  will  make  of  thee  a  great  nation,  and  I  will 
bless  thee,  and  make  thy  name  great ;  and  thou  shalt  be 
a  blessing:  and  I  will  bless  them  that  bless  thee,  and 
curse  him  that  curseth  thee  :  and  in  thee  shall  all  families 
of  the  earth  be  blessed."  I  have  formerly  quoted  the 
terms  of  the  covenant  of  circumcision  in  the  seventeenth 
chapter.  It  ought  to  require  no  more  than  the  simple 
reading  of  the  two  passages  together,  to  satisfy  any  un- 
prejudiced mind,  that  the  latter,  though  not  containing 
the  precise  words  which  are  alleged  to  be  the  gospel  pro- 
mise, is  yet  but  an  amplification  of  the  former  : — especial- 
ly when  it  is  considered,  that  the  covenant  recorded  in 
the  fifteenth  chapter,  on  the  statement  of  which  the  apos- 
tle founds  his  principal  argument  for  the  justification  of 
Abraham  by  faith  without  the  deeds  of  the  law,  does  not 
contain  the  promise,  on  which  so. much  stress  is  laid,  that 
"  in  him  and  in  his  seed  should  all  the  families  of  the 
earth  be  blessed."  It  contains  no  more  than  the  assurance 


SECTION    I.  21 

of  the  increase  of  his  seed: — "He  brought  him  forth 
abroad,  and  said,  Look  now  toward  heaven,  and  tell  the 
stars,  if  thou  be  able  to  number  them  :  and  he  said  unto 
him,  so  shall  thy  seed  be.  And  he  believed  the  Lord, 
and  he  counted  it  to  him  for  righteousness."  Gen.  xv.  5, 
6.  The  gospel,  then,  must  have  been  involved  in  the 
promise  thus  given  and  believed  : — for  it  will  not  surely 
be  disputed,  that  it  was  by  the  faith  of  the  gospel  that 
Abraham  was  justified. 

But  what  most  of  all  surprises  me,  in  regard  to  this  hy- 
pothesis, is,  that  that  covenant  which  is  supposed  to  be  a 
covenant  of  temporal  blessings  only,  to  the  natural  off- 
spring of  Abraham,  should  be  the  very  covenant  of  which 
the  terms  are  most  distinctly,  and  most  frequently  quoted, 
in  the  New  Testament,  with  a  spiritual  interpretation. 
That  Mr.  Maclean  should  have  been  guilty  of  this  over- 
sight, affords,  I  fear,  only  one  exemplification  amongst 
many,  of  a  defect  to  which  even  the  acutest  and  most 
vigorous  minds  are  liable,  the  unconsciously  blinding  in- 
fluence of  attachment  to  system. — But  let  me  bring  a  proof 
or  two  of  my  position  : — 

1.  Gen.  xvii.  4,  5.  "  As  for  me,  behold  my  covenant 
is  with  thee,  and  thou  shalt  be  a  father  of  many  nations. 
Neither  shall  thy  name  be  called  any  more  Abram,  but 
thy  name  shall  be  Abraham;  {ox  a  father  of  many  nations 
have  Imade  thee." — It  was  not,  a  priori,  probable,  that  the 
memorable  circumstance,  of  the  divinely  intimated  change 
of  the  patriarch's  name,  should  have  been  associated  with 
any  covenant  inferior  to  that  which  contained  the  best 
and  highest  blessings  ;  which  God  here,  as  in  many  oth- 
er places,  appropriately  designates  "  my  covenant." — Ac- 
cordingly, the  very  promise  in  the  above  verses  is  most 
expressly  applied,  by  the  apostle,  to  the  spiritual  seed  of 
Abraham  as  the  father  of  the  faithful, — the  spiritual  father 
of  believers  in  all  nations: — Rom.  iv.  16,  17.  "There- 
fore it  is  of  faith,  that  it  might  be  by  grace  ;  to  the  end 
the  promise  might  be  sure  to  all  the  seed,  not  to  that  only 
which  is  of  the  law,  but  to  that  also  which  is  of  the  faith 
of  Abraham,  ivho  is  the  father  of  us  all,  (as  it  is  written, 
I  have  made  thee  a  father  of  many  nations" )  &c. — Noth- 
ing can  be  more  explicit  than  this. 


22 


SECTION 


2.  "And  1  will  establish  my  covenant  between  me  and 
thee,  and  thy  seed  after  thee,  in  their  generations,  to  be  a 
God,  to  thee  and  to  thy  seed  after  thee." 

As  to  this  promise,  which  certainly  sounds  very  like 
one  of  the  "exceeding  great  and  precious  promises"  of 
the  new  covenant,  it  is  of  essential  consequence  first  of  all 
to  notice,  that  in  whatever  sense  God  promises  here  to  be 
a  God  to  Abraham,  he  promises,  in  the  same  sense,  to  be 
a  God  to  his  seed.  The  promise  is  one.  No  hint  is  ever 
given  of  his  being  the  God  of  Abraham  in  one  sense,  and 
the  God  of  his  seed  in  another. — Now  who  are  the  seed 
to  whom  Jehovah  thus  engages  to  be  a  God  ?  Surely  the 
seed  specified  in  the  preceding  terms  of  the  covenant. 
And  who  are  they?  Have  we  not  the  answer  given  us 
by  inspired  authority,  in  the  apostle's  interpretation  of  the 
words — "  Thou  shalt  be  a  father  of  wany  nations."  If 
this  means,  as  Paul  teaches  us,  his  being  the  spiritual  fa- 
ther of  believers  in  all  nations,  then  must  not  these  be  the 
seed  of  Abraham  to  whom  he  promises  to  be  a  God  ? — If 
objections  are  brought  to  this,  they  ought,  I  think,  to  be 
brought  against  the  apostle. 

The  New  Testament  interpretation  of  the  promise  it- 
self "  I  will  be  a  God  to  thee,"  "  I  will  be  thy  God,"  is 
in  perfect  accordance  with  this  view  of  the  seed  to  whom 
the  promise  is  made. — Jehovah  has  been  the  God  of  his 
people,  in  every  age,  upon  the  same  ground  ;  and  that 
ground  is  intimated  by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  to  be  their 
connection  with  him,  when  he  says  to  Mary  Magdalene, 
after  his  resurrection,  "  Go,  tell  my  disciples,  I  ascend 
u  to  my  father  and  your  father,  to  my  God  and  your  God." 
John  xx.  17. — The  full  import  of  the  interesting  de- 
signation may  appear  from  the  following  passages  of 
scripture  : — 

In  Matt.  xxii.  31,  32.  Jesus  concludes  his  reply  to  the 
Sadducees,  respecting  the  resurrection  and  a  future  state, 
with  these  words,  in  evidence  of  his  doctrine  : — "  But  as 
touching  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  have  ye  not  read 
that,  which  was  spoken  to  you  by  God,  saying,  I  am  the 
God  of  Abraham,  and  the  God  of  Isaac,  and  the  God  of 
Jacob  ?  God  is  not  the  God  of  the  dead,  but  of  the  liv- 
ing."— From  this  passage  it  is  evident,  without  entering 


SECTION    I.  23 

into  any  discussion  of  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  entire 
argument,  that,  as  their  God,  continuing  and  declaring 
himself  such  long  after  their  decease,  he  had  received 
their  spirits  to  blessedness  with  himself,  and  also,  as  the 
resurrection  of  the  dead  was  the  subject  in  question,  that 
he  was  to  raise  their  bodies  from  the  grave, — to  "show 
them  the  path  of  life," — to  put  them  in  possession  of  those 
"  pleasures  which  are  at  his  right  hand  for  evermore;" 
and  so  to  fulfil  to  them  the  promise  of  "  everlasting  inher- 
itance." 

Compare  with  this  passage,  Heb.  xi.  13 — 16.  "  These 
all  died  in  faith,  not  having  received  the  promises,  but 
having  seen  them  afar  off,  and  were  persuaded  of  them, 
and  embraced  them,  and  confessed  that  they  were  stran- 
gers and  pilgrims  on  the  earth.  For  they  that  say  such 
things  declare  plainly  that  they  seek  a  country.  And 
truly,  if  they  had  been  mindful  of  that  country  from 
whence  they  came  out,  they  might  have  had  opportunity 
to  have  returned  :  but  now  they  desire  a  better  country, 
that  is,  an  heavenly  :  wherefore  God  is  not  ashamed  to  be 
called  their  God  ;  for  he  hath  prepared  f« >r  them  a  city." 
The  faith,  and  hope,  and  desire,  of  the  patriarchs,  are 
here  represented  as  having  for  their  object  the  heavenly 
country.  This  they  expected  to  receive  from  God  as 
their  God,  according  to  the  promise  of  his  covenant ;  and 
we  are  assured,  that  as  their  God  he  would  not  disappoint 
their  most  enlarged  and  elevated  hopes,  founded  as  they 
were  on  his  own  word.  "  God  is  not  ashamed  to  be  call- 
ed their  God,  for  he  hath  prepared  for  them  a  city."  Can 
any  inference  be  more  simple  or  direct  from  such  a  pas- 
sage, than  that  God  would  have  been  ashamed  to  be  called 
their  God,  had  he  not  provided  for  them  such  a  city,  as  is 
here  referred  to,  the  city  which  hath  foundations,  whose 
builder  and  maker  he  himself  is,"  ver  10. — that  he  would 
have  been  ashamed  to  represent  himself  in  so  endearing 
a  relation  to  them,  had  the  title  been  accompanied  with 
the  bestowment  of  a  mere  earthiy  inheritance — a  temporal 
blessing  only  ;  had  he  prepared  for  them  anything  that 
would  have  fallen  short  of  their  hopes,  and  failed  to  satisfy 
the  utmost  extent  of  their  desires  1  The  title  and  the 
gift  would  have  been  incongruous ;  as  when  a  man  raise§ 


24 


SECTION    I. 


our  expectations  by  high  professions  of  friendship,  and 
then  puts  off  with  a  comparative  trifle.  His  gifts  are  more 
worthy  of  himself,  and  of  the  relations  which  he  has  gra- 
ciously assumed,  and  revealed  himself  as  sustaining,  to- 
wards his  people. 

This  promise,  indeed,  "  I  will  by  thy  God,"  is  often 
expressed  as  a  principal  one  amongst  the  engagements  of 
the  new  covenant,  and,  has  ever  been  acknowledged  and 
felt  by  his  people,  as  "  the  fulness  of  the  blessing  of  the 
Gospel  of  Christ."  In  evidence  of  this,  the  reader  may 
consult  the  following  passages  of  the  Old  and  New  Tes- 
tament scriptures  j  and,  if  he  is  well  acquainted  with  his 
Bible,  he  will  be  able  to  add  to  them  many  more.  Jer. 
xxxi.  33.  xxxii.  38—40.  Ezek.  xxxiv.  23,  24,  30,  31. 
xxxvi.  25—28.  xxxvii.  27.  Heb.  viii.  10.  2  Cor.  vi.  16 
—18. 

It  is  no  valid  objection  to  this,  that  God  is'so  often  spo- 
ken of  as  the  God  of  the  nation  of  Israel ;  and  that, 
in  assuming  this  relation  to  them,  as  a  nation,  he  repre- 
sents himself  as  remembering  his  covenant  with  their  fa- 
thers. Exod.  vi.  4 — 8.  Lev.  xxvi.  12.  &c. — It  should  be 
recollected,  that  the  nation  of  Israel,  springing  from 
Abraham,  in  the  line  of  Isaac  and  Jacob,  was  the  Church 
of  God.  Now  God  has  been  the  God  of  his  church,  col- 
lectively considered,  and  regarded  as  containing  the  true 
Isreal,  in  the  same  sense,  in  all  ages.  I  will  not  multiply 
passages  in  proof  of  this.  Let  the  following,  from  the 
prophecies  of  Isaiah,  serve  as  a  specimen.  Any  reader, 
who  is  familiar  with  his  Bible,  will  be  able  to  add  parallels 
to  an  almost  indefinite  extent.  Isa.  xliii.  1 — 7.  "But 
now,  saith  the  Lord  that  created  thee,  O  Jacob,  and  he 
that  formed  thee,  O  Israel,  fear  not :  for  I  have  redeem- 
ed thee,  I  have  called  thee  by  thy  name ;  thou  art  mine. 
When  thou  passest  through  the  waters,  I  will  be  with 
thee;  and  through  the  rivers,  they  shall  not  overflow 
thee :  when  thou  walkest  through  the  fire,  thou  shalt  not 
be  burnt ;  neither  shall  the  flame  kindle  upon  thee.  For 
I  am  the  Lord  THY  GOD,  the  Holy  One  of  Israel,  thy 
Saviour  :  I  gave  Egypt  for  thy  ransom,  Ethiopia  and  Seba 
for  thee.  Since  thou  wast  precious  in  my  sight,  thou  hast 
been  honorable,   and  I  have  loved  thee  :  therefore  will  I 


SECTION    I.  25 

give  men  for  thee,  and  people  for  thy  life.  Fear  not ; 
for  I  am  with  thee  :  I  will  bring  thy  seed  from  the  east, 
and  gather  thee  from  the  west ;  I  will  say  to  the  north, 
give  up ;  and  to  the  south,  keep  not  back  :  bring  my  sons 
from  far,  and  thy  daughters  from  the  ends  of  the  earth  : 
even  every  one  that  is  called  by  my  name  :  for  I  have 
created  him  for  my  glory,  I  have  formed  him  ;  yea,  I  have 
made  him."  In  these  verses,  is  a  reference  to  what 
God  had  done,  in  manifestation  of  his  love  to  his  people, 
and  of  the  value  he  set  upon  them  ;  and  there  are,  at  the 
same  time,  promises  of  what  he  was  to  do  for  them  in  fu- 
ture times  : — yet  he  speaks  of  himself  as  bearing  the  same 
relation  to  them  all  along — from  the  beginning  to  the  end 
— when  he  "gave  Egypt  for  their  ransom,"  and  when,  in 
the  latter  days,  he  "  brings  his  sons  from  far,  and  his 
daughters  from  the  ends  of  the  earth  :" — "  I  am  Jehovah 
thy  God,  the  Holy  One  of  Israel,  thy  Saviour." 

It  is  worthy  of  particular  notice,  that  the  appearance  of 
Jehovah  to  Abraham  recorded  in  the  seventeenth  chapter 
of  Genesis,  is  the  only  occasion  on  ichich  this  promise  is 
made  to  the  patriarch.  It  is  not  to  be  found  either  in  the 
twelfth,  or  in  the  fifteenth,  or  subsequently  in  the  twenty- 
second.  If,  therefore,  the  covenant  in  the  seventeenth 
chapter  was  a  covenant  of  temporal  promises  only,  then 
this  promise  was  never  made  to  Abraham  at  all  in  its 
spiritual  meaning  ;  in  that  meaning  which  alone  gave  it 
real  worth,  in  which  alone  it  is  applicable  to  the  follow- 
ers of  Abraham's  faith,  and  in  which  the  New  Testament 
scriptures  explain  and  make  so  much  of  it !  Is  this  credi- 
ble,— is  this  possible? 

3.  "  And  I  will  give  unto  thee,  and  to  thy  seed  after 
thee,  the  land  wherein  thou  art  a  stranger,  all  the  land  of 
Canaan,  for  an  everlasting  possession." — The  question  is 
not,  whether  this  is  a  promise  of  the  earthly  Canaan.  No 
one,  I  presume,  ever  questioned  that.  But  is  it  a  promise 
of  the  earthly  Canaan  only  ?  That  the  promise  of  the 
temporal  inheritance  does,  in  one  or  other  or  all  of  its 
occurrences,  include  under  it  the  promise  of  the  eternal, 
must  be  very  evident  from  this  one  consideration,  that  if 
it  be  not  so,  the  eternal  inheritance  was  never,  so  far  as 
appears,  promised  at  all.  Yet  it  was  upon  the  ground, 
3 


2b  SECTION   I. 

certainly,  of  such  promises  as  are  actually  recorded,  that 
Abraham  and  the  other  believing  patriarchs  looked  for  the 
heavenly  country.  That  they  did  look  for  it,  we  know  ; 
and  it  is  equally  sure,  from  the  apostle's  language  in  the 
eleventh  chapter  of  the  Hebrews,  formerly  quoted — that 
they  founded  their  expectations  on  divine  promise  : — 
"  By  faith  Abraham  sojourned  in  the  land  of  promise,  as 
in  a  strange  country,  dwelling  in  tabernacles  with  Isaac 
and  Jacob,  the  heirs  with  him  of  the  same  promise  :  for," 
— on  the  ground  of  that  promise  surely — "  he  looked  for 
a  city  which  hath  foundations,  whose  builder  and  maker 
is  God."  Heb.  xi.  9,  10.  The  hope  of  the  heavenly  Ca- 
naan, then,  was  founded  on  the  promise  of  the  earthly, 
understood  as  typical,  and  comprehensive  of  higher  bles- 
sings than  the  literal  terms  imported ;  and,  at  the  same 
time,  on  the  promise,  "  I  will  be  thy  God,"  which  also,  as 
we  have  seen,  included  spiritual  and  eternal  blessings. — 
Indeed  the  whole  of  the  gospel  revelation  was  then,  and 
for  ages  afterwards,  under  the  vail  of  figurative  language, 
and  of  typical  rites,  objects,  and  events.  To  have  given, 
in  clear  and  explicit  terms,  the  full  promise  of  the  eternal 
inheritance,  would  not  have  been  consistent  with  the  di- 
vine scheme  of  gradual  development,  nor  with  the  fact  of 
"life  and  immortality  being  brought  to  light  by  Jesus 
Christ."  But  that  the  premise  ivas  given,  is  manifest 
from  the  apostolic  representation,  and  from  his  saying 
elsewhere,  respecting  those  patriarchs  who,  though  they 
"  sojourned,"  in  the  land  of  Canaan,  received  "no  inheri- 
tance in  it,  no  not  so  much  as  to  set  their  foot  on,"  that 
on  their  following  each  other,  by  (jeath,  to  heaven, 
"  through  faith  and  patience  they  inherited  the  primises." 
— I  might  show  the  spiritual  meaning  of  the  phraseology 
in  Gen.  xvii.  in  some  other  particulars  ;  but  I  am  desi- 
rous to  confine  myself  to  such  as  are  expressly  interpreted 
in  the  New  Testament  scriptures. 

From  these  considerations,  it  appears  to  me  "  passing 
strange,"  that  this  should  be  the  covenant  (supposing  it  a 
distinct  one  from  the  rest)  selected  for  degradation  to  a 
mere  covenant  of  temporal  promises  to  the  natural  off- 
spring !  The  promises  which  it  contains  are  evidently 
the  same  in  substance  with  those  given  at  previous  appear- 


SECTION    I.  27 

ances,  only  more  amply  unfolded  :  and  that  there  is  not  the 
least  necessity  for  considering  every  sucessive  appearance 
as  a  distinct  covenant,  Mr.  Maclean  himself  may  be  cited 
as  authority  :  for,  after  intimating  the  propriety  of  follow- 
ing what  he  alleges  to  be  the  scriptural  representation  of 
the  case,  and  taking  up  the  communications  recorded  in 
the  12th,  15th,  and  17th  chapters  of  Genesis,  as  so  many 
distinct  covenants,  he  yet  admits  that  the  covenant  con- 
firmed by  oath  in  the  twenty-second  chapter,  at  a  period 
still  later,  was  in  substance  the  same  as  that  in  the  twelfth, 
the  earliest  of  ail.  But  if  we  are  warranted  in  consider- 
ing the  earliest  and  the  latest  as  the  same,  we  cannot 
surely  be  very  far  wrong  in  so  considering  the  others  that 
were  intermediate. 

It  was  with  this  covenant,  then,  which  the  apostle  so 
explicitly  declares  to  have  been  the  covenant  of  grace, 
"  confirmed  before  of  God  in  Christ," — that  the  rite  of 
circumcision  was  connected. — There  are  some,  however, 
of  our  Baptist  brethren,  who  readily  admit  the  spiritual 
nature  of  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  but  declare  themselves 
incapable  of  perceiving  the  legitimacy  and  conclusiveness 
of  the  inference  we  deduce  from  it,  and  therefore  regard 
all  our  reasonings  in  support  of  it,  so  far  as  the  subject  of 
baptism  is  concerned,  as  thrown  away. — This  has  always 
appeared  to  me  very  surprising.  If  the  connection  be- 
tween parents  and  children,  recognised  in  that  ordinance, 
had  belonged  only  to  the  old  or  Sinai  covenant,  and  if  the 
ordinance  of  circumcision,  instead  of  being  "  of  the  fa- 
thers" had  been  exclusively  "  of  Moses  "  pertaining  sole- 
ly to  that  temporary  dispensation  of  which  he  was  the 
mediator, — we  should  then  have  seen  a  good  reason  why 
both  the  connection  itself,  and  the  ordinance  that  marked 
it,  should  have  ceased  together,  when  the  dispensation 
came  to  a  close  with  which  they  were  associated. — But  if 
circumcision  was  "  not  of  Moses,  but  of  the  fathers;" — if 
it  originally  pertained  to  a  covenant  that  never  "  decay- 
eth  or  waxeth  old  ;"  and  if,  under  that  covenant,  children 
were  connected  with  their  parents  in  the  application  of 
the  sign  and  seal ; — then  we  must  insist  upon  it,  that  the 
burden  of  proof  rests  upon  our  opponents.  They  demand 
of  us  express  precept  for  our  practice,    We  are  better  en- 


28  SECTION    I. 

titled  to  demand  of  (hem  express  precept  for  theirs.  If 
the  covenant  made  with  Abraham  be  indeed  God's  ever- 
lasting covenant  of  grace, — and  if  the  sign  and  seal  of  this 
covenant  was  administered  by  God's  command  to  the 
children  of  those  who  professed  the  faith  of  Abraham, 
and  to  them  in  their  turn  became,  as  it  had  been  to  him, 
a  "  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith" — (and  who  can  deny 
that  it  was  such  to  Isaac  and  Jacob,  the  "  heirs  with  him 
of  the  same  promise?"  and  if  to  them,  why  not  to  other 
believers?) — if  these  things,  I  say,  be  so, — then  where, 
we  ask,  is  any  change  in  the  constitution  of  the  covenant 
in  this  respect  pointed  out  ?  When  were  children  exclud- 
ed, and  by  what  law  ?  Let  an  express  repealing  statute 
be  shown  us,  and  we  will  immediately  relinquish  our 
practice.  The  alteration  of  an  old  constitution,  or  the 
setting  aside  of  an  old  law,  as  was  formerly  hinted,  re- 
quires an  express  precept,  as  much  as  the  appointment  of 
a  constitution  or  law  entirely  new.  To  speak  of  the  abo- 
lition, tacit  or  express,  of  the  old  economy,  the  Mosaic 
dispensation,  is  nothing  to  the  purpose  :  because  the  apos- 
tle assures  us,  that  the  covenant  of  circumcision,  so  far 
from  being  a  part  of  the  law,  and  partaking  of  its  tempo- 
rary and  evanescent  nature,  was  a  covenant  which  exist- 
ed long  before  it,  which  could  not  be  disannulled  either 
by  its  introduction  or  its  cessation,  but  which  continues  to 
this  day. — By  confounding  this  covenant  with  the  law, 
and  including  any  part  of  its  gracious  provisions  in  "  that 
which  decayed,  and  waxed  old,  and  vanished  away,"  you 
set  the  law  "  against  the  promises  of  God,"  and  throw  in- 
to confusion  and  inconclusiveness  the  simple  and  beautiful 
reasoning  of  the  apostle. — That  the  particular  rite  is 
changed  we  have  abundant  evidence  ;  and  satisfactory 
reasons  for  the  change  might  be  assigned.*     But  of  any 

*  Besides  its  import  as  denoting-  the  "  putting  off  the.  body  of  the  sins  of 
the  flesh."  circumcision  was,  in  all  probabilily.  intended  as  a  sign  that  the 
seed,  in  whom  all  nations  were  to  be  blessed,  should  come  from  the  loins  of 
Abraham.  Of  this  it  was  a  significant  emblem  and  remembrancer.  The 
promise  of  the  Messiah  was  restricted  to  the  line  of  descent  by  Isaac.  Jn 
this  line,  therefore,  it  became  a  memorial  of  the  promise  that  Messiah  should 
be  made  flesh  amongst  them.  And  I  doubt  not  that,  in  other  lines  also  of 
descent  from  Ahraham,  this  rite,  originally,  by  the  command  of  God,  ad- 
ministered to  all  his  family,  had  its  influence,  in  a  general  [way,  in 
preserving  the  idea  and  expectation  of  the  promised  seed,     If  this  be  well 


SECTION    I. 


29 


alteration  as  to  the  admission  of  children  with  their  pa- 
rents to  the  sign  and  seal  and  blessing  of  the  covenant, 
we  are  destitute  o(  evidence  entirely.  Nothing  whatever 
can  be  produced  in  the  form  of  a  direct  repeal ;  and  as  to 
the  inferential  reasoning  which  has  been  employed  to  set 
aside  the  previously  existing  connection,  we  shall  have 
occasion  to  examine  it  in  the  next  section  of  this  trea- 
tise. 

I  am  aware,  indeed,  how  frequently  and  how  confident- 
ly it  has  been  alleged,  that  the  words  of  institution,  as 
they  have  been  improperly  called  (I  say  improperly,  be- 
cause baptism  was  not  at  that  time  first  instituted,  but  had 
been  practised  before,)  involved  a  repeal,  by  declaring 
that  none  are  to  be  baptized  but  such  as  are  capable  of 
being  taught.  The  well  known  words  are  :  "  Go  ye, 
therefore,  and  teach  (or  disciple)  all  nations,  baptizing 
them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and 
of  the  Holy  Ghost :  teaching  them  to  observe  all  things 
whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you."  Matt,  xxviii.  19, 
20. 

The  reply  to  this  is  simple  and  satisfactory;  although 
I  am  sufficiently  aware,  how  strongly  a  certain  habit  of 
mind,  in  viewing  a  particular  passage,  tends  to  prevent 
the  clear  perception  of  the  validity  of  any  reasoning,  di- 
rected against  the  sense  ihus  habitually  and  systematically 
affixed  to  it. —  Suppose  the  ordinance  of  circumcision  had 
been  to  continue,  and  the  command  had  run  in  these 
terms, — "  Go  ye,  therefore,  and  disciple  all  nations,  cir- 
cularising them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the 
Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost:  teaching  them  to  observe 
all  things,"  &,c.  Had  such  language  been  used,  we 
should  have  known  that  children  were  to  be  the  subjects 
of  the  prescribed  rite,  as  well  as  their  parents:  the  pre- 
viously existing  practice  would  have  ascertained  this. 
Now,  should  we  have  been  sensible,  even  with  this  knowl- 
edge, of  the  smallest  impropriety,  or  inconsistency  in  the 

founded,  we  at  once  perceive  a  good  reason  why  circumcision  should  be 
abolished  iclien  this  seed  came  ,  and  why  another  rite  should  be  substituted 
in  its  place,  which  continued  to  signify  as  expressively,  or  more  so,  the 
"  putting  off  the  body  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh,"  while  it  was  not  at  all  signifi- 
cant of  that  part  of  the  meaning  of  the  former  symbol,  which  had  now  re- 
ceived its  fulfilment. 

3* 


30  SECTION    I. 

use  of  such  language?  Would  it  have  appeared  to  us,  in 
even  the  slightest  degree,  contradictory  or  incongruous? 
Would  it  have  been  understood  by  the  apostles,  as  neces- 
sarily excluding  children?  Would  they  certainly  have 
inferred  from  it,  that  although  the  same  rite  was  to  contin- 
ue, there  was  to  be  a  change  in  the  subjects  of  it  ? — that 
none  now  were  to  be  circumcised  but  those  who  were  ca- 
pable of  immediate  instruction  in  the  will  of  Christ,  and 
practical  compliance  with  it?  No:  there  is  nothing  in 
the  terms  of  the  commission  that  could  at  all  have  led 
them  to  such  a  conclusion.  They  would,  without  hesita- 
tion, have  gone  on  to  circumcise  children  with  their  pa- 
rents as  formerly,  teaching  the  parents  the  mind  and  will 
of  Christ,  and  charging  them  to  instruct  their  rising  off- 
spring. And  if  a  commission  to  circumcise,  given  in  these 
terms,  would  not  have  been  understood  as  necessarily  ex- 
cluding children,  it  can  never  be  shown  that  a  commis- 
sion in  the  same  terms  to  baptize  must  have  been  so  un- 
derstood. The  practical  evidence  that  the  apostles  actu- 
ally did  not  so  understand  it,  will  be  afterwards  consider- 
ed.— In  the  mean  time,  permit  me  to  observe,  we  have, 
in  a  parallel  passage  of  scripture,  most  satisfactory  evi- 
dence of  the  justness  of  these  remaiks.  I  refer  to  Gal.  v. 
2 — 5.  "Behold,  I  Paul  say  unto  you,  that  if  ye  be  cir- 
cumcised, Christ  shall  profit  you  nothing.  For  I  testify 
again  to  every  man  that  is  circumcised,  that  he  is  a 
debtor  to  do  the  whole  law.  Christ  is  become  of  no  effect 
unto  you,  whosoever  of  you  are  justified  by  the  law;  ye 
are  fallen  from  grace." — In  the  27th  verse  of  the  third 
chapter  of  the  same  Epistle,  the  apostle  says  : — "  For  as 
many  of  you  as  have  been  baptized  unto  Jesns  Christ  (or, 
"ye,  whosoever  have  been  baptized  unto  Jesus  Christ") 
have  put  on  Christ."  From  this  expression  it  has  been 
very  confidently  argued,  that  adults  only  were  baptized, 
because  of"  putting  on  Christ"  adults  only  were  capable. 
— Now,  let  this  principle  of  interpretation,  or  of  inference, 
be  applied  to  the  passage  quoted  from  the  fifth  chapter. 
It  is  an  address  to  adults  : — it  expresses  things  of  which 
adults  only  were  capable.  Are  we,  then,  to  infer  from 
this,  that  adults  only  were  circumcised?  We  certainly 
oe^lit,  on  the  same  principle  on  which  we  infer,  from  the 


SECTION    I.  31 

other,  that  adults  alone  were  baptized.  There  is  precise- 
ly the  same  ground  in  the  former  case,  as  there  is  in  the 
latter.  Yet  we  know,  that  in  the  latter  the  inference 
would  be  contrary  to  fact ;  for  nothing  can  be  more  cer- 
tain than  that,  when  Gentile  converts  were  circumcised,  it 
was,  in  conformity  with  Jewish  practice,  along  with  their 
children.  A  principle  of  criticism,  therefore,  which,  appli- 
ed in  one  case,  leads  to  a  conclusion  at  variance  with 
known  facts,  cannot  with  any  fairness,  nay,  cannot  with- 
out the  risk,  and  more  than  the  risk,  of  mistake  and 
error,  be  applied  in  another. — The  truth  is,  that  the  strict 
application  of  such  a  principle  to  language  of  this  general 
kind,  wculd  lead  us  into  innumerable  absurdities. 

I  may  here,  by  the  way,  take  notice  of  a  difficulty 
which  has  been  suggested,  from  the  passage  which  I  have 
just  quoted,  in  regard  to  the  import  of  circumcision,  and 
its  identity  under  the  one  dispensation  with  baptism  under 
the  other.  IJow,  it  has  been  asked,  should  circumcision 
exclude  from  the  grace  and  blessings  of  the  gospel  cove- 
nant, if  it  was  connected  with  that  covenant,  and  signifi- 
ed the  same  thing  with  baptism?* — But  the  moment  we 
recollect  to  what  desciption  of  doctrine  the  apostle  is  here 
opposing  himself,  the  solution  of  the  difficulty  is  at  once 
apparent.  It  is  the  doctrine  of  those  who  taught  the  Gentile 
brethren,  that  "  except  they  were  circumcised  after  the  man- 
ner of  Moses,  they  could  not  be  saved;'' — that"  it  was  neces- 
sary," namely,  to  their  salvation,  "  to  circumcise  them,  and 
to  command  them  to  keep  the  law  of  Moses."  Acts  xv. 
1,  5,  24. — Now  when,  in  such  a  connection,  the  apostle 
says,  "  If  ye  be  circumcised,  Christ  shall  profit  you  noth- 
ing," it  is  equivalent  to  his  saying,  "  If  ye  embrace  this 
doctrine,  Christ  shall  profit  you  nothing."  This  is  clear 
from  the  circumstance,  that  being  circumcised  in  the  one 
verse  corresponds  to  "  being  justified  by  the  law"  in  the 
other  :  in  the  one  he  says,  "  If  ye  be  circumcised,  Christ 
shall  profit  you  nothing  ;" — in  the  other,  "  Christ  is  be- 
come of  no  effect  unto  you,  whosoever  of  you  arejustif- 
ed  by  the  la?v." — He  reminds  them,  therefore,  that  if  they 
embraced  this  doctrine,  they  renounced  the  grace  of  the 

*  See  Maclean,  Rev.  p.  21. 


32  SECTION    I. 

gospel  ;  and  that  if  they  persisted  in  seeking  justification 
by  circumcision  and  the  law,  they  should  bear  in  mind 
what  the  law  required  of  them  in  order  to  their  attaining 
their  end  ; — that  nothing  would  suffice  short  of  their 
"  doing  the  whole  law,"  yielding  to  it  a  sinless  obedience. 
— That  such  is  the  import  of  the  phrase  "  if  ye  be  circum- 
cised',"  is  further  evident  from  the  case  of  Abraham  and 
the  original  circumcision.  Abraham  was  circumcised  : 
but  surely  "  Christ"  did  not  therefore  "  profit  him  noth- 
ing ;" — "  he  did  not  fall  from  grace."  So  far  from  it, 
that  his  circumcision  was  the  seal  to  him  of  the  righteous- 
ness, not  of  works,  but  of  faith — not  of  law,  but  of  grace. 
— The  Gentile  Christians  "  being  circumcised,"  there- 
fore, was  not  'their  mere  submission  to  the  rite,  but  their 
dependence  up  it,  in  connection  with  the  law  of  Moses, 
for  justification  :  and  no  person,  acquainted  with  the 
spirit  of  the  apostle's  writings  on  this  subject,  will  ques- 
tion the  position,  that,  in  similar  circumstances,  he  would 
have  said  the  very  same  thing  of  baptism,  that  he  says  of 
circumcision.  He  who  now  trusts  for  acceptance  to  his 
baptism,  as  effectually  falls  from  Christ  and  from  grace, 
as  he  who  trusted  of  old  to  his  circumcision. 

Before  closing  this  section/  1  may  offer  a  few  further 
strictures  on  the  reasonings  of  some  of  the  opponents  of 
psedobuptism,  on  one  of  the  leading  topics  discussed  in  it, 
— the  true  nature  of  the  covenant  of  circumcision,  and 
the  import  of  the  rite  as  connected  with  it ;  strictures, 
which  I  have  reserved  for  this  place,  in  order  to  avoid 
giving  a  disproportionate  extension  to  one  of  the  links  in 
the  chain  of  my  own  argument,  by  which  the  reader 
might  have  been  in  danger  of  losing  sight  of  the  connec- 
tion. They  will,  however,  serve  to  give  further  confirm- 
ation to  the  general  principles  which  it  has  been  my  en- 
deavor to  establish. 

Of  the  covenant  in  Gen.  xvii.  Mr.  Maclean  thus  writes, 
contrasting  it  with  the  promise  in  the  12th  chapter  : 
"  The  first  promise  made  to  Abraham,  Gen.  xii.  3.  is 
termed  '  the  covenant  which  was  confirmed  before  of 
God  in  Christ/  Gal.  iii.  17.  and  contained  a  promise  of 
blessing  all  nations,  i.  e.  all  Abraham's  spiritual  or  be- 
lieving seed  of  Jews  and  Gentiles.     But  the  covenant  of 


SECTION    F.  33 

circumcision  did  not  include  the  Gentiles,  but  was  a  pe- 
culiar covenant  with  the  natural  posterity  of  Abraham, 
who  were  to  receive  the  token  of  it  in  their  flesh  in  infan- 
cy, as  a  people  separated  unto  God  from  all  others,  and 
of  whom  Messiah  was  to  spring.  Christian  baptism, 
therefore,  is  not  founded  on  the  covenant  of  circumcision, 
which  was  peculiar  to  the  natural  seed  of  Abraham  :  but  on 
that  covenant  which  extends  the  blessing  of  Abraham  to 
his  spiritual  seed  of  all  nations.  Accordingly,  when  the 
ancient  covenant  of  promise  came  to  be  actually  ratifiedin 
the  blood  of  Christ,  the  peculiar  covenant  of  circumcision 
with  the  fleshly  seed  of  Abraham  was  set  aside,  and  bap- 
tism was  appointed  to  be  administered  to  all,  whether 
Jews  or  Gentiles,  who  appeared  to  be  his  spiritual  seed 
by  faith  in  Christ,  but  to  none  else."  Review  p.  104.  I 
must  here  be  permitted  again  to  marvel,  at  the  dimness 
of  vision,  and  the  confusion  of  ideas,  which  the  admission 
of  a  false  principle,  and  attachment  to  an  erroneous  sys- 
tem, can  produce  in  even  the  acutest  and  most  discern- 
ing minds.  The  promise  of  blessing  to  "  all  nations"  is 
in  the  above  extract  admitted  to  mean,  of  blessing  to  "  all 
/ibralunn's  spiritual  or  believing  seed  of  Jews  unci  Gen- 
tiles ;"  and  yet  that  covenant  is  affirmed  "  not  to  have  in- 
eluded  the  Gentiles"  but  to  have  been  "a  peculiar  cove- 
nant with  the  natural  posterity  of  Abraham"  the  very 
terms  of  which  are  expressly  applied  by  the  apostle  him- 
self to  the  M  spiritual  seed  of  all  nations,"  for  thus,  as  we 
have  seen,  he  explains  the  promise  "  a  father  of  many  na- 
tions have  I  made  thee." — "Christian  baptism,"  says  Mr. 
M'L.  "  is  not  founded  in  the  covenant  of  circumcision." 
True;  if  the  covenant  of  circumcision  was  indeed  only  a 
covenant  of  temporal  blessings,  peculiar  to  the  natural 
offspring  of  Abraham.  In  that  case,  it  was  "  set  aside;" 
and  Christian  baptism  does  belong  to  a  different  covenant 
from  that  to  which  circumcision  was  annexed.  But  if,  on 
the  contrary,  we  have  succeeded  in  showing,  that  the 
"  covenant  of  circumcision"  was  indeed  a  covenant  of 
spiritual  as  well  as  temporal  blessings  to  the  spiritual  seed 
of  Abraham,  then  have  we  not  here  Mr.  Maclean's  con- 
cession, that,  instead  of  being  "  set  aside,"  it  still  contin- 
ues, and  that  Christian  baptism  is  founded  in  it,  and  holds 


34  SECTION    I. 

a  similar  place  now,  in  connection  with  the  same  cove- 
nant, to  that  held  of  old  by  circumcision  ?  This  shows 
how  much  depends  on  a  right  view  of  the  covenant  in 
Gen.  xvii.  with  which  circumcision  was  connected. 

But  the  amiable  and  excellent  author  of  "  i:ugenio 
and  epenetus,"  takes  quite  a  different  view  of  this  cove- 
nant of  circumcision  from  Mr.  Maclean.  Pie  admits  its 
spirituality  :  and  when  circumcision  is  denominated  "the 
token  of  the  covenant,"  he  considers  the  phrase  of  equiva- 
lent import  with  that  other  phrase  used  by  the  apostle, 
"a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith." — "  It  was,"  says 
he,  "  the  token  of  a  covenant  made  with  Abraham  ((  as  a 
believer,  and  essentially  connected  with  that  righteousness 
which  was  imputed  to  him  by  faith.  Hence  the  recollec- 
tion of  this  covenant  brought  along  with  it  the  recollec- 
tion of  that  faith  in  connection  with  which  it  was  formed. 
And  whatever  could  be  properly  denominated  a  token  of 
a  covenant  founded  on  a  righteousness  imputed  by  faith, 
might,  with  equal  propriety,  be  termed  a  sea!,  or  standing 
memorial  of  that  righteousness  of  faith  with  which  this 
covenant  was  connected."  Page  55. — I  perfectly  concur 
with  Mr.  lnnes  in  the  view  which  he  gives,  and  in  support 
of  which  he,  in  my  opinion,  successfully  argues,  of  the 
meaning  of  the  phrase  "  a  seal  to  the  righteousness  of 
faith  !"  as  signifying,  not  a  seal  of  the  individual  of  per- 
sonal justification,  but  a  seal  or  symbolical  certification,  and 
standing  memorial,  ofthe  grand  doctrine  of  justification  by 
faith, — of  which  the  justification  of  Abraham  was,  both  to 
Jew  and  Gentile,  the  pattern  or  exemplar.  But  this  doc- 
trine belongs  to  the  new  and  everlasting  covenant,  and 
constitutes  its  fundamental  article.  Mr.  Maclean,  in  the 
passage  above  cited,  by  affirming  the  connection  of  circum- 
cision with  the  temporal  covenant  only,  indirectly  admits 
that,  if  it  had  been  connected  with  the  other,  there  would 
have  been  some  ground  for  the  inferences  diawn  by  us  as 
to  Christian  baptism  ; — for  he  makes  the  difference  be- 
tween circumcision  and  baptism  to  consist  in  the  former 
being  connected  with  the  old,  and  temporary  covenant 
and  the  latter  with  the  new,  spiritual,  and  everlasting  one. 
— Mr.  Innes,  on  the  contrary,  connects  circumcision  with 
the  spiritual  covenant,  that  covenant  according  to  which 


SECTION    I.  35 

Abraham  and  all  believers  since  have  been  justified  by 
faith.  But  he  is  one  of  those  referred  to  above,  who, 
granting  the  premises,  do  not  perceive  the  legitimacy  of 
the  conclusion. — Baptists  have  sometimes  said  to  paedo- 
baptists,  "You  cannot  be  right;  you  differ  so  much 
amonst  yourselves  in  your  views  of  the  subject?"  They 
had  as  well  be  quiet  on  that  score.  It  is  but  "  foolish 
talking,"  on  both  sides.  Our  sole  inquiry  should  be  after 
truth  and  duty.  If  one  view  of  a  subject  be  true,  it  is  not 
the  less  true  that  another  has  been  held. 

Mr.  Cox  embraces  Mr.  Maclean's  second  view  of  the 
covenant  of  circumcision.  Whether  he  ever  held  the  first 
I  cannot  say.  But  surely,  never  was  there  published  to 
the  world  a  statement  more  thoroughly  at  issue,  in  every 
point,  with  that  of  the  apostle,  than  the  following.  After 
quoting  the  terms  of  the  covenant,  in  Gen.  xvii.2 — 14, — 
for  which  see  the  preceding  pages, — he  thus  comments: 
— "  Let  a  person  unbiassed  by  any  previous  system,  put 
into  ordinary  language  the  blessings  covenanted  in  the 
above  recited  paragraph  ;  let  him  impartially  state  its  en- 
tire import.  Would  he  not  inevitably  give  the  following 
interpretation  1  Circumcision  was  the  sign  of  a  covenant 
with  Abraham  and  his  posterity,  denoting  that  it  was  the 
divine  purpose  to  increase  his  family  to  a  remarkable  de- 
gree, that  they  should  become  a  great  nation,  and  even  be 
diffused  far  over  the  face  of  the  earth  ;  to  manifest  a  pe- 
auliar  and  unalterable  regard  to  his  family  as  their  God, 
by  the  ample  fulfilment  of  the  agreement  which  he  now 
condescended  to  form  with  their  illustrious  ancestor,  and 
which  stipulated  their  extraordinary  multiplication; — and 
to  give  them  Canaan  for  an  inheritance.  All  persons, 
however  attached  to  the  family,  whether  as  children  or 
servants,  were  to  undergo  the  prescribed  rite,  in  order  to 
distinguish  them  from  the  surrounding  nations,  and  to 
evince  that  they  belonged  to  the  people  whom  God  had 
especially  chosen.  This  token  of  association  with  Abra- 
ham, and  participation  of  his  privileges,  was,  it  appears, 
bestowed,  irrespectively  of  personal  character,  conduct, 
or  faith  ;  for  the  purchased  slave  received  it  as  well  as  the 
home-born  child,  whether  a  believer  in  the  God  of  Abra- 
ham or  not,  and  simply  as  a  part  of  his  domestic  estab- 


36  SECTION    I. 

ment.  But  though  they  were  to  undergo  the  painful  rite, 
the  promise  of  inheritance  was  restricted  to  the  posterity 
of  the  individual  who  stood  as  their  federal  representative, 
and  who,  by  this  ordinance,  were  separated  and  distin- 
guished from  all  the  Gentile  nations."* 

Now,  with  regard  to  the  nature  and  amount  of  the  bles- 
sings covenanted  in  the  passage  in  question,  1  must  be  al- 
lowed to  prefer,  as  my  interpreters,  our  Lord  and  his 
apostles,  to  Mr.  Cox.  They  were  surely  "  unbiassed  by 
any  previous  system  ;"  and  we  have  seen  how  very  differ- 
ent from  his  are  the  views  which  they  hold  forth. 
Mr.  Cox  appears  to  adopt,  as  his  principle  of  interpreta- 
tion, the  sense  which  any  reader,  taking  up  the  passage, 
without  any  previous  knowledge  at  all,  would  naturally 
attach  to  its  phraseology.  But  the  slightest  reflection 
must  satisfy  him,  that  this  is  far  from  being  a  legitimate 
principle.  In  interpreting  the  Old  Testament,  the  New, 
wherever  it  gives  us  direction,  is  our  surest  guide.  Mr. 
Cox's  ignorant  reader  might  no  doubt  understand  Abra- 
ham's being  "  a  father  of  many  nations,"  literally  ; — but 
if  the  apostle  Paul  interprets  it  spiritually,  which  are  we 
to  follow?  He  would  consider  the  "  land  of  Canaan"  as 
signifying  the  country,  on  earth  so  denominated,  and  no 
more;  but  if  Paul  explains  the  promise  of  Canaan  as  ex- 
clusive of  "  the  better  country,  even  the  heavenly,"  the 
promise  of  which  is  not  to  be  found  at  all,  unless  under 
this  form, — and  if,  as  he  tells  us,  the  patiiarchs  them- 
selves so  understood  it,  and  founded  their  hopes  upon  it 
accordingly,  which  authority  is  to  decide? — What  idea 
might  be  affixed,  by  such  a  supposed  reader,  to  the  other 
promise,  "  I  will  be  a  God  to  thee  and  to  thy  seed  after 
thee,"  is  not  perhaps  so  easily  determined.  But  what- 
ever it  might  be,  the  same  question  would  still  present 
itself;  a  question,  the  reply  to  which  admits  of  no  hesita- 
tion. 

It  will  not  surely  be  denied,  that  circumcision  could 
not  be  intended  for  a  purpose  which  it  never  answered. 
"The  promise  of  the  inheritance."  says  Mr.  C.  "  was  re- 
stricted to  the   posterity  of  the   individual   who  stood  as 

*  Essay  131,  132. 


SECTION    I.  37 

their  federal  representative,  who  by  this  ordinance,  were 
separated  and  distinguished  from  all  the  Gentile  nations." 
He  should  have  added  that  it  was  restricted  to  this  pos- 
terity, in  a  particular  li^e  of  descent,  namely,  by  Isaac. 
Now  by  the  very  circumstance  of  circumcision  having 
been  administered  to  so  many  others  besides  Isaac,  it  fail- 
ed to  serve  the  purpose  thus  assigned  to  it ;  it  was  no  dis- 
tinction of  Abraham's  posterity  by  Isaac;  but  was  com- 
mon to  them  with  other  tribes  and  nations,  sprung  from 
the  same  stock,  and  yet  having  no  part  in  the  promise  of 
the  earthly  inheritance.  Might  not  this  circumstance  have 
suggested  to  Mr.  Cox's  mind,  that,  connecting  circumcis- 
ion with  the  covenant  of  redemption,  there  was,  in  its  ad- 
ministration to  others  besides  Isaac,  an  intimation  intend- 
ed, that  although,  to  serve  particular  purposes  in  the  di- 
vine economy,  the  "  covenant  was  established  with  him" 
yet  its  best  blessings,  were  not  to  be  confined  to  one  por- 
tion of  Abraham's  family,  or  even  to  his  posterity  at 
large,  but  were  to  extend  to  others  also; — an  intimation 
which  continued  to  be  given  in  the  admission,  by  circum- 
cision, to  the  church  of  God,  of  all  Gentile  proselytes  pro- 
fessing the  faith  of  Abraham. 

That  circumcision  was  administered  to  all  the  adult 
domestics  of  Abraham,  without  regard  to  any  profession 
of  the  fiith  of  their  master,  but  "  simply  as  a  part  of  his 
domestic  establishment,"  is  a  gratuitous  assumption,  need- 
ful, it  may  be,  to  the  support  of  the  baptist  system,  but  of 
which  there  is  no  proof  beyond  the  brevity  of  the  history. 
There  is  not  even  this.  All  the  proof  that  really  exists 
is  proof  of  the  contrary.  When  Jehovah  himself  gives 
the  character  of  his  servant,  as  one  whom  he  "  knew  to 
command  his  children  and  household  after  him,  that 
they  should  keep  the  "  way  of  the  Lord,  to  do  justice  and 
judgment,"  we  must  be  permitted  to  consider  it  as  a  slan- 
der upon  the  father  of  the  faithful,  to  suppose  that  there 
were  any  in  his  household  uninstructed  in  the  knowledge 
and  fear  of  God  ;  and  if  we  are  to  judge  of  the  rest  by  the 
specimen  we  have  in  the  history, — Eliezer  of  Damascus, 
and  Hagar  the  Egyptian,  it  will  be  no  unfavorable  esti- 
mate we  shall  form  of  the  character  of  the  inmates  of  his 
4 


38 


SECTION    I. 


family.     Let  us  not  judge  of  the  "  friend  of  God"  by  the 
example  of  a  West  India  slaveholder.* 

Mr  Cox  conceives,  and  very  confidently  says,  that  it  is 
my  "  first  and  great  mistake  respecting  the  covenant  it- 
self, that  perplexes  the  whole  subject,  pollutes  all  the  sub- 
sequent reasonings,  and  confounds  together  things  which 
essentially  differ. " — I  agree  with  him,  that  if  my  view  of 
the  covenant  of  circumcision  be  a  mistaken  one,  it  must 
necessarily  invalidate  and  overthrow  the  reasonings  found- 
ed upon  it.  But  it  unfortunately  happens,  that  the  reason- 
ings both  of  Mr.  Cox  and  Mr.  Maclean  have  settled  me 
more  firmly  in  the  conviction,  that  the  mistake  and  con- 
fusion are  on  their  side,  not  on  mine. — Mr.  Cox  denies 
the  truth  of  my  position,  that  circumcision  "  was  a  sign 
of  the  blessings  bestowed  in  justification  ;  representing 
the  taking  away  of  sin,  both  in  its  guilt  and  its  pollution  ; 
that  is,  representing  the  two  great  blessings  of  justification 
and  sanctification."  "  Will  Dr.  W."  says  he  "  or  any 
of  his  brethren,  have  the  goodness  to  point  out  the  phra- 
ses, which  represent  the  two  great  blessings  of  justifica- 
tion and  sanctification  ?  Here  is  not  only  a  general  state- 
ment of  the  existence  of  a  covenant  between  God  and 
Abraham,  but  a  specification  of  the  design  of  that  cove- 
nant, and  the  blessings  of  which  it  gave  assurance  to  that 
eminent  servant  of  God.  Is  justification  mentioned? 
Is  sanctification  mentioned  V  The  reader,  who  has  at- 
tended to  the  view  before  given,  from  the  new  Testament, 
of  the  promises  of  the  covenant  referred  to, — the  cove- 
nant of  circumcision  in  the  seventeenth  chapter  of  Gen- 
esis,—  will  be  at  no  loss  for  an  answer  to  these  questions. 
I  know  of  no  writer,  indeed,  unless  it  be  Mr.  Cox  himself, 
who  hesitates  to  admit  the  spiritual  signification  of  the 
rite  of  cicumcision  ;  and  that  fie  really  denies  it,  I  have 
found  it  difficult  to  persuade  myself,  in  the  face  of  those 
expressions  of  scripture,  which  occur  so  frequently  and 
with  which  his  mind  is  familiar  : — such  as,  "  Circumcise 
the  foreskin  of  your  heart ;" — "  All  the  seed  of  Israel  are 
uncircumcised  in  heart;" — "  Circumcision  is  that  of  the 

*  T.et  not  the  illusion  be  offensive  to  any  one.  I  make  it,  becarse  I  have 
sometimes  heard  the  one  ease  adduced  on  the  baptist  side  ol  the  question, 
in  illustration  of  the  other. 


SECTION    I.  39 

heart,  in  the  spirit  and  not  in  the  letter  ;" — "  We  are  the 
circumcision,  who  worship  God  in  the  spirit;" — "  In 
whom  also  ye  are  circumcised  with  the  circumcision  made 
without  hands,  in  putting  off  the  body  of  the  sins  of  the 
flesh,  by  the  circumcision  of  Christ," — &,c.  &c. — Strange 
as  would  have  been  the  dcniai,  in  opposition  10  such  phra- 
seology, of  the  spiritual  import  of  circumcision,  yet  had 
Mr.  Cox  been  able  to  maintain  it,  it  would  have  been  con- 
sistent with  his  view  of  the  covenant  with  which  the  rite 
was  connected,  as  a  covenant  "  solely  of  temporal  bless- 
ings :"  and,  startled  as  I  was,  on  finding  him  questioning 
whether  circumcision  at  all  represented  spiritual  blessings, 
I  really  thought  I  bad  found  him  in  the  first  baptist  whom 
I  had  known  consistent  with  himself  upon  this  point. 
But  "  nil  fuit  unquam  tarn  impar  sibi." — He  says,  "  I  have 
already  shown  that  the  covenant  of  circumcision  included 
solely  temporal  blessings,  and  that  the  rite  was  instituted 
to  distinguish  the  Jew.-,  from  the  other  nations,  and  to  show 
their  title  to  the  land  of  Canaan."*  Nad  Mr.  Cox,  I  say, 
been  able,  in  the  face  of  his  Bible,  to  adhere  to  this  sim- 
ple view  of  the  rite,  his  system,  respecting  the  covenant 
to  which  it  was  annexed,  might  at  least,  have  been  consis- 
tent with  itself.  But  it  will  not  do.  After  quoting  the 
Apostle's  expression,  respecting  Abraham, — "  he  received 
the  sign  of  circumcision,  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of 
the  faith  which  he  had  being  yet  uncircumcised," — he 
says  :  "  This  language  surely  represents  it  as  a  token  of 
his  acceptance  as  a  believer; — a  seal  of  his  justification, 
before,  he  was  circumcised  ; — a  public  pledge  that  his  faith 
was  imputed  to  him  for  righteousnpss,  or  that  God  accept- 
ed his  faith  ;  and  an  exhibition  of  the  doctrine  that  their 
faith  should  be  imputed  in  a  similar  manner  to  all  subse- 
quent believers.  Thus  it  involved  essentially  a  personal 
reference,  while  it  represented  a  general  truth  /"  And 
again,  in  remarking  on  my  sentiment,  that,  whatever  cir- 
cumcision signified  and  sealed  to  Abraham,  it  must  have 
signified  and  sealed  also  to  Isaac  and  Jacob,  the  heirs 
with  him  of  the  sirne  promise  : — "  Undoubtedly  Isaac  and 
Jacob  were  co-heirs  with  Abraham,  and  circumcision  in- 

*   Page  137. 


40  SECTION    I. 

dicated  to  them  what  it  did  to  all  his  posterity;  for  in- 
deed there  is  no  reason  for  this  discrimination  in  fivor  of 
these  eminent  patriarchs;  that  is,  it  indicated  to  them 
their  heirship  by  hirth  of  the  temporal  promises,  and  their 
equal  participation  by  faith  of  the  spiritual  blessings  !•' 
From  these  premises,  the  following  strange  anomalies 
may  be  directly  deduced: — 

1.  The  covenant  to  which  circumcision  was  annexed, 
as  its  token,  contained  promises  exclusively  of  temporal 
blessings;  and  yet  circumcision  was  to  Abraham,  person- 
ally, the  seal  or  pledge  of  his  possessing  the  first  of  spirit- 
ual blessings, — justification  by  faith  : — 

2.  The  covenant  of  circumcision  contained  nothing  in 
it  of  the  "  two  great  blessings  of  justification  and  sanctifi- 
cation," — and  the  rite  was  instituted  simply  "to  distinguish 
the  Jews  from  other  nations,  and  to  show  their  title  to  the 
land  of  Canaan  :"  yet  circumcision,  connected  as  it  was 
with  this  temporal  covenant  only,  "  represented  the  gen- 
eral truth"  of  justification  by  faith  ;  being  "  an  exhibition 
of  the  doctrine  that  their  faith  should  be  imputed  in  a  sim- 
ilar manner  to  all  subsequent  believers," — and  "  indicat- 
ing to  Isaac  and  Jacob,  and  to  all  the  posterity  of  Abra- 
ham, their  equal  participation  by  faith  of  the  spiritual  bless- 
ings :"— 

3.  Abraham  obtained  his  justification,  and  all  the  bless- 
ings of  salvation  connected  with  it,  on  the  ground  of  the 
Gospel  covenant,  or  covenant  of  grace  ;  yet  the  sign  which 
he  received,  and  by  which  these  precious  blessings  were 
pledged  to  him,  had  no  connection  at  all  with  that  cove- 
nant, on  the  around  of  which  he  obtained  them  : — and  be- 
lievers in  all  ages  are  designated  "  the  circumcision,"  al- 
though the  right,  from  which  they  obtain  the  designation, 
not  only  was  not  spiritual  in  itself,  (which  no  rite  can  be) 
but  did  not  even  signify  any  of  those  peculiar  blessings  by 
which  they  are  distinguished,  nor  bear  any  relation  to  the 
covenant  whose  promises  are  fulfilled  in  the  bestowment 
of  them  ! 

Nor  are  the  sentiments  of  Mr.  Maclean  on  this  subject 
more  self-consistent  than  those  of  Mr.  Cox. — He  consid- 
ers (as  we  have  before  seen)  the  covenant,  of  which  we 
have  the  record  in   Gen.  xii.  as   essentially  distinct  from 


SECTION    f.  41 

lhat  in  Gen.  xvii.  The  former  alone  he  regards  as  the 
gospel  covenant,  the  latter  as  containing  exclusively  prom- 
ises of  temporal  blessings  to  Abraham  and  his  natural  off- 
spring. But  he  has  not  only  the  difficulty  to  contend  with, 
how  it  should  come  to  pass  that  the  token  annexed  to  a 
covenant  of  temporal  promises,  should  be,  to  Abraham 
himself,  the  seal  of  the  blessings  of  the  higher  and  better 
covenant; — his  system  is  embarrassed  with  another  diffi- 
culty. He  admits  that  "both  circumcision,  and  the  tem- 
poral promises  to  which  it  was  annexed,  had  also  a  mys- 
tical or  typical  sense  :"  that  "  circumcision  and  what  per- 
tained to  it  had  both  a  tetter  and  a  spirit,  or  a  literal  sense 
in  relation  to  the  fleshy  seed  of  Abraham,  and  a  mystical 
or  typical  sense  in  reference  to  his  spiritual  seed."* — Now, 
without  pressing  on  this  acute  writer,  the  inconsistency  of 
reasoning  in  support  of  the  second  of  his  successive  theo- 
ries, in  terms  that  are  applicable  only  to  thejirst, — 1  would 
merely  observe  :  It  is  here  admitted  that  the  covenant  in 
Gen.  xvii.  contains  promises; — that  these  promises  have 
a  mystical  or  spiritual  sense,  as  well  as  a  literal  and  tem- 
poral ; — and  that  circumcision,  the  token  of  this  covenant, 
has  a  similar  spiritual  as  well  as  literal  meaning  : — I  have 
then  to  ask — Are  the  blessings  contained  in  this  covenant 
to  be  considered  as  promised  in  the  mystical  or  spiritual 
sense,  as  well  as  in  the  literal  and  temporal  ?  If  they  be  ; 
then  does  it  not  become,  bona  fide,  a  covenant  of  spirit- 
ual as  well  as  of  temporal  promises  ;  only  that,  in  the  for- 
mer sense,  the  promises  are  made  in  reference  to  the  spi- 
ritual seed,  and  in  the  latter  to  the  natural? — and  does 
not  circumcision,  as  annexed  to  such  a  covenant,  and  itself 
possessing  a  mystical  as  well  as  a  literal  meaning,  become 
the  token  of  the  covenant  in  its  spiritual  as  well  as  its  tem- 
poral import?  And  does  not  this  effectually  subvert  the 
distinction  contended  for  between  the  different  covenants 
(as  they  are  alleged  to  have  been)  with  Abraham? — es-. 
pecially  when  three  tiling  formerly  adverted  to  are  recol- 
lected ;— -first,  tint  the  faith  by  which  Abraham  is  declar- 
ed to  have  been  justified  is  the  faith  of  one  of  the  promi- 
ses in  the  covenant  of  circumcision,  namely,  that  of  the 

*  Review,  pages  22;  23,  tt  passim. 


42  SECTION    I. 

multiplication  of  his  seed — See  Gen.  xv.  5,  6  :  secondly, 
that  believers  in  all  ages  are  represented  as  being  heirs  ac- 
cording to  another  of  its  promises,  namely,  that  of  the  in- 
heritance of  Canaan  ;  for  under  no  other  form  is  the  prom- 
ise of  the  "  better  country"  ever  given  in  the  divine  com- 
munications with  Abraham  ;  See  as  before,  Gal.  iii.  18 — 
29  : — and  thirdly,  that  another  still,  a  third  of  its  promises, 
and  one  of  which  so  much  is  made  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment,— that  of  Jehovah  being  "  his  God  and  the  God  of 
his  seed,"  is  nowhere  to  be  found  at  all,  in  any  covenant 
with  Abraham,  except  here. 

I  have  before  referred  to  various  modes  of  expression 
in  scripture  which  clearly  ehow  the  spiritual  import  of  the 
rite  of  circumcision.  1  might  have  noticed  more  partic- 
ularly, as  not  only  a  proof  of  this,  but  also  of  baptism  and 
circumcision  being  substantially  significant  of  the  same 
things — (v\ith  the  exception  of  the  latter  having  contained 
a  pledge  of  the  coming  of  Messiah  out  of  the  loins  of 
Abraham,  which  pledge  of  course  ceased  to  be  necessary 
when  the  event  had  taken  place,) — the  language  of  the 
Apostle  Paul,  in  Col.  ii.  11,  12.  "  In  whom  also  ye  are 
circumcised  with  the  circumcision  made  without  hands, 
in  putting  off  the  body  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh,  by  the  cir- 
cumcision of  Christ :  having  been  buried  with  him  in  bap- 
tism, wherein  also  ye  are  risen  with  him,  through  the  faith 
of  the  operation  of  God,  who  hath  raised  him  from  the 
dead." — The  more  I  consider  this  passage,  I  am  the  more 
convinced,  that  it  warrants  our  considering  baptism  as 
the  Christian  circinncision.  The  inquiry  ought  not  to  be, 
"  Is  it  possible  to  interpret  the  language  otherwise  ?" — 
but,  "  Is  this  its  most  natural  meaning  ?"  I  think  it  is, 
because  otherwise  there  is  a  feeble  tautology  ;  the  "  cir- 
cumcision made  without  hands,"  and  the  "  circinncision 
of  Christ,"  being  made  of  the  very  same  import; — as  if 
the  apostle  had  said — "  Ye  are  circumcised  with  the  cir- 
cumcision of  the  heart,  in  putting  off  the  body  of  the  sins 
of  the  flesh,  by  the  circumcision  of  the  heart,"  &-c. : — 
and  further,  because  the  connection  between  the  two  ver- 
ses leads  to  this  interpretation  : — "  having  been  buried 
with  him  in  baptism,"  being  added  in  explanation  of  the 
preceding  phrase,  "  putting  off  the  body  of  the  sins  of  the 


SECTION    I.  43 

flesh  by  the  circumcision  of  Christ."  And  the  fact  that 
baptism  corresponds  to  circumcision,  in  denoting  the  "put- 
ting off  the  body  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh,"  goes  to  con- 
firm this  interpretation.  "His  meaning  is,''  says  Mr.  Ew- 
ing,  "  that,  as  they  were  blessed  with  regeneration,  which 
was  the  blessing  signified  by  their  baptism,  they  stood  in 
no  need  of  circumcision,  since  regeneration  is  the  circum- 
cision made  without  hands,  that  is,  the  circumcision  of 
the  heart,  so  often  spoken  of  both  in  the  Old  and  New 
Testament.  Now,  this  reasoning  is  inconclusive,  and  the 
very  language  in  which  it  is  expressed  is  unintelligible, 
not  only  unless  the  ordinance  of  baptism  under  the  reign 
of  Christ,  and  the  ordinance  of  circumcision  which  was 
observed  before  his  coining,  (both  equally  done  with  hands) 
signify  the  same  thing,  but  unless  the  one  has  come  in 
the  room  of  the  other." 

I  have  formerly  (page  3G.)  stated  my  conviction  that 
the  promises  of  the  "covenant  of  circumcision,"  consid- 
ered as  including  both  temporal  and  spiritual  blessings, 
were  made,  the  one  and  the  other  alike,  to  the  same  seed, 
on  the  same  ground  ; — and  that  there  is  no  distinction  re- 
cognized, either  in  the  narrative  or  in  the  reasonings  of 
the  Apostle,  between  the  two  kinds  of  promises,  as  if  the 
one  had  been  made  to  the  natural  seed,  and  the  other  to 
the  spiritual. — I  believe  both  to  have  been  made,  (because 
the  Apostle,  by  speaking  of  the  promises  of  the  covenant 
indiscriminately,  in  effect  says  so,)  to  the  spiritual  seed ; 
whilst  there  was,  at  the  same  time,  a  primary  respect  to 
the  natural  offspring,  amongst  whose  successive  genera- 
tions that  seed  was,  by  divinely  appointed  means,  and  es- 
pecially parental  instruction,  to  be  raised  up. 

Had  Mr.  Cox  understood  my  positions,  or  at  all  attend- 
ed to  them,  he  could  never  have  written  as  follows  : — 
"  The  statement,  that  both  promises  are  bestowed  on  the 
same  seed  and  on  the  same  footing,  is  equally  erroneous. 
Dr.  Wardlaw  will  never,  surely,  attempt  to  prove  that  all 
the  seed  of  Abraham  according  to  the  flesh  were  parta- 
kers of  salvation — that  they  were  all  justified  and  sancti- 
fied !  If  the  promises  of  the  covenant  of  circumcision 
were  temporal,  they  were  fulfilled  ;  if  they  are  supposed 


44  SECTION  I. 

to  have  been  spiritual,  they  were  not  accomplished."* — 
To  the  same  purpose  he  elsewhere  quotes  Mr.  Kinghorn 
as  saying — "  Surely  none  will  maintain  that  God  engaged 
to  bestow  special  spiritual  blessings  on  all  the  natural  seed 
of  Abraham  ;  for  this  was  not  the  fact  in  any  age;  and 
we  cannot  imagine  the  covenant  intended  to  point  out 
what  was  not  fulfilled."! — This  way  of  representing  the 
case  is  very  common  with  Baptists  :  but  they  are  charge- 
able in  it  with  a  glaring  oversight.  They  forget,  that  to 
"  all  the  natural  seed  of  Abraham,"  even  in  the  line  of 
Isaac,  the  temporal  promises  were  not  fulfilled,  any  more 
than  the  spiritual.  They  forget,  that  for  nearly  five  hun- 
dred years  from  the  time  of  the  promise,  not  a  soul  of 
Abraham's  posterity  inherited  a  foot-breadth  of  Canaan  ; 
and  that  now,  for  more  than  seventeen  centuries,  it  has 
been  given  to  the  Gentiles,  the  seed  of  the  father  of  the 
faithful  being  utterly  dispossessed  of  it. — So  far  am  I  from 
fancying  the  covenant  "  intended  to  point  out  what  was 
not  fulfilled,"  that  I  do  not  see  any  satisfactory  ground  on 
which  the  faithfulness  of  God  to  the  promises  of  the  cov- 
enant, -whether  temporal  or  spiritual,  can  be  fully  and  clear- 
ly vindicated,  but  that  which  the  Apostle  takes  up,  that 
"ikey  are  not  all  Israel  who  are  of  Hsraei." — Let  us  rec- 
ollect the  occasion  on  which  he  introduces  this  distinction. 
He  supposes  the  objection  might  be  made  to  his  state- 
ments, respecting  the  casting  oft  of  the  Jewish  people  for 
their  unbelief  and  rejection  of  the  Messiah,  that  it  would 
be  a  violation  of  the  divine  promises,  which  were  made  to 
Abiaham  and  his  posterity.  When  he  first  mentions  this 
difficulty,  he  does  not  give  the  solution  of  it,  but  only  re- 
jects, with  indignation,  every  possibility  of  God's  failing 
in  his  word  : — "  For  what  if  some  did  not  believe?  shall 
their  unbelief  make  the  faithfulness  of  God  without  effect  ? 
God  forbid  :  yea,  let  God  be  true,  though  every  man  should 
be  a  liar,"  Horn.  iii.  3,  4. — But  he  afterwards  resumes  the 
subject,  and  states  the  principle  on  which  the  divine  ve- 
racity is  cleared  of  impeachment.  Having  expressed,  in 
the  beginning  of  the  ninth  chapter  of  the  same  epistle, 
"  his  great   heaviness   and  continual  sorrow  of  heart  for 

*  Fa-es  14,3.  114.  t  Poge  133. 


SECTION    I.  45 

his  brethren,  his  kinsmen  according  to  the  flesh,"  antici° 
pating  no  doubt  the  impending  judgments  of  God,  and 
their  ejection  from  his  church,  he  adds,  veises  (5 — 8,  "Not 
as  though  the  word  of  God  hath  taken  none  effect;  for 
they  are  not  all  Israel,  who  are  of  Israel  :  neither  because 
they  are  the  seed  of  Abraham  are  they  all  children  ;  but 
in  Isaac  shall  thy  seed  be  called  :  that  is,  they  who  are 
the  children  of  the  flesh,  these  are  not  the  children  of  God, 
but  the  children  of  the  promise  are  counted  for  the  seed." — 
It  is  evident,  that  in  this  ground  of  vindication,  the  prin- 
ciple is  assumed,  that  the  promises  of  a  faithful  God  must 
be  fulfilled,  in  the  sense,  and  to  the  extent,  in  which  they 
were  made.  Had  the  promises  been  made  to  all  the  nat- 
ural posterity  of  Abraham  as  such, — then  to  all  of  them, 
as  such,  they  must  have  been  verified  ;  and  the  "  casting 
ofT"  of  the  unbelieving  Jews  from  the  privileges  of  the 
church,  and  from  the  possession  of  the  earthly  inheritance, 
would,  the  Apostle  tacitly  admits,  have  been  at  variance 
with  the  truth  of  God.  But  the  distinction  which  he  in- 
troduces reconciles  the  facts  with  the  promises,  showing 
that  their  accomplishment  extends  to  all  to  whom  they 
were  originally  made. 

If  it  should  be  objected  to  this,  that  the  spiritual  seed 
have  been  deprived  of  the  earthly  Canaan  as  well  as  the 
natural  offspring,  and  that  therefore,  the  promises,  in  their 
temporal  sense,  have  not  been  fulfilled  to  the  former  uni- 
versally, any  more  than  to  the  latter  ;  —  I  answer, first,  that 
the  difficulty  attaches  to  both  sides  of  the  present  ques- 
tion, and  therefore  ought  not  to  be  vehemently  urged  by 
the  one  or  the  other  against  its  opposite  ; — and  secondly , 
that  the  simplest  principle  of  solution  seems  to  be,  that 
believers,  since  the  coming  ot  Christ,  are  "  inheritors  of 
the  promises,"  in  the  same  sense  in  which  Abraham,  Isaao 
and  Jacob  themselves  were,  in  which  Moses  and  Aaron 
were,  in  which  all  the  saints  were,  previously  to  the  actual 
possession  of  Canaan.  If  the  instances  that  preceded  its 
occupation  be  not  valid  exceptions,  neither  are  those  which 
hwefoltuice'l  it,— or  rather,  perhaps,  I  should  say,  which 
intervene  between  its  forfeiture  and  its  re-occupation.  In-. 
dividual  Jews,  who  are  biought  to  the  knowledge  of 
Christ,  come   to  be  heirs  of  the  promises  in  their  higher 


46  SECTION    I. 

sense,  the  less  blessing  being  absorbed,  as  it  were,  in  the 
greater,  till  "  the  Deliverer  shall  come  to  Zion,  and  turn 
away  ungodliness  from  Jacob."  Not,  however,  that  the 
temporal  promise  is,  to  the  people  of  God,  done  away 
Godliness  has  "  the  promise  of  the  life  that  now  is,"  as 
well  as  of  "  that  which  is  to  come,"  and  those  who  "seek 
first  the  kingdom  of  God  and  his  righteousness/'  have;  the 
assurance  that  "  all  these  tilings" — namely,  the  needful 
blessings  of  this  life, — "  shall  be  made  unto  them." 

These  observations,  respecting  the  seed,  to  whom  the 
temporal  inheritance  was  promised  as  well  as  the  eternal, 
are  in  full  harmony  with  the  ground  on  which,  according 
to  the  statements  of  scripture,  the  earthly  Canaan  was  ob- 
tained, and  held,  and  lost.  It  was  obtained  by  faith;  by 
faith  it  was  held  ;  and  it  was  lost  by  unbelief. 

1.  What  was  the  reason  why  the  race  that  came  out  of 
Egypt  by  Moses  did  not  enter  Canaan  ? — what  wis  the 
cause  of  their  exclusion  1 — It  was  unbelief; — unbelief  of 
the  promises  of  God  to  their  fathers  ;  which  promises,  as 
we  have  already  seen,  contained  the  gospel,  in  the  state 
of  its  revelation  at  the  time.  This  is  plainly  declared, 
Heb.  iii.  18,  19.  "To  whom  sware  he  that  they  should 
not  enter  into  his  rest,  but  to  them  who  believed  not  ?  So 
we  see,  that  they  could  not  enter  in  because  of  unbelief:" 
and  chap.  iv.  2.  "  For  unto  us  was  the  gospel  preached 
as  well  as  unto  them  :  but  the  word  preached  did  not  profit 
them,  not  being  mixed  with  faith  in  them  that  heard  it." — 
The  unbelief,  thus  imputed  to  this  proscribed  generation, 
was  not  unbelief  of  the  statements  of  those  who  had  been 
sent  to  search  the  land.  For  if,  ir/the  representation  giv- 
en by  these,  there  was  any  material  difference  between 
Caleb  and  Joshua  ,on  the  one  hand,  and  the  remaining  ten 
on  the  other,  certainly,  as  far  as  respected  human  testi- 
mony, Israelites  could  not  have  been  greatly  to  blame,  for 
receiving  the  declaration  of  ten  in  preference  to  that  of 
two.  But  it  was  unbelief  of  the  declarations  and  promises 
of  God,  made  by  Him  to  their  fathers,  respecting  that 
land  ;  and,  consequently,  distrust  of  his  veracity,  and  his 
power,  accompanied  with  rebellious  complaints  and  mur- 
mu rings.  It.  amounted  to  a  rejection  of  the  word  of  God 
and  the  promises  of  his  covenant, — a  rejection  of  God  him- 


SECTION    I.  47 

self  as  the  God  of  their  fathers,  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Ja- 
cob. It  was  a  denial  of  his  faithfulness,  not  in  the  prom- 
ise of  Canaan  only,  but  in  all  the  promises  respecting  the 
seed  of  Abraham,  connected  with  it,  and  dependent  up- 
on its  fulfilment.  These  "  sinners  against  their  own  souls" 
were,  doubtless,  unbelieving  and  proud  despisers  of  all 
that  the  God  of  their  fathers  had  engaged  by  covenant  to 
do, — of  the  accomplishment  of  which  their  own  deliver- 
ance, by  signs  and  wonders,  from  Egyptian  bondage,  was 
a  prelude  and  a  pledge.  They  were  unbelievers  of  the 
Gospel,  as  then  revealed  in  the  promises  of  the  covenant 
made  with  Abraham. 

2.  It  is  true,  that  the  Israelites  are  spoken  of  as  con- 
tinuing to  hold  the  land  of  Canaan  in  possession  through 
obedience.  But  by  this  obedience  we  must  understand 
the  obedience  of  faith.  I  say,  we  must  so  understand  it, 
not  because  it  is  necessary  to  the  making  out  of  our  pre- 
sent argument,  but  because  the  principles  laid  down  by 
the  Apostle,  respecting  the  possession  of  the  inheritance, 
indispensably  require  it.  "  If  the  inheritance,  be  of  the 
law,"  he  says,  "  it  is  no  more  of  promise:" — "  if  they 
who  are  of  the  law  be  heirs,  faith  is  made  void,  and  the 
promise  made  of  no  effect." — These  expressions  stand  in 
perfect  opposition  to  the  idea  of  the  land  of  Canaan  ever 
being  held  on  the  ground  of  law,  or  as  the  merited  reward 
of  legal  obedience.  And  there  are,  accordingly,  many 
passages,  in  which  the  obedience  required  of  Israel  is  de- 
scribed as  being  much  more  than  mere  outward  subjec- 
tion;  as  being  nothing  le^ss  than  inward  spiritual  princi- 
ple, manifested  in  external  conduct  ;  that  is,  in  ether 
words,  the  obedience  of  faith.  Let  the  reader,  who  is 
desirous  to  ascertain  the  truth  of  this  or  the  contrary, 
consult  Deut.  x.  12 — 22.  and  vi.  1  — 19  :  and,  as  illustra- 
tive of  the  reasons  of  Divine  judgments  and  of  restora- 
tion from  them,  the  whole  of  the  thirtieth  chapter  of  the 
same  book. — If  any  choose  to  say,  that  their  obedience 
was  the  condition  of  their  continuing  to  enjoy  the  prom- 
ised blessings,  my  approving  or  disapproving  of  the  ex- 
pression, (which  is  ambiguous,  and  therefore  improper) 
depends  on  the  meaning  which  it  is  intended  to  bear.  If 
by  condition   be   meant  meritorious  ground  or  procuring 


48  SECTION    I. 

cause,  I  decidedly  object  to  the  statement,  as  contradic- 
tory of  the  Apostle's.  But  if  by  obedience  being  {he  con- 
dition of  enjoying  the  blessing,  nothing  more  is  intended, 
than  its  being  essentially  requisite,  a  sine  qua  non  ;  then 
the  expression  conveys  an  important  truth, — a  truth  as 
applicable  to  us  as  to  them  : — for  there  is  no  enjoying 
the  blessings,  of  any  kind,  which  God  has  promised  but  in 
the  way  of  obedience  to  his  commandments,  under  the 
influence  of  "  iaith  working  by  love."  It  is  equally  a 
truth  that  "  by  grace  we  are  saved,"  and  that  "  without 
holiness  no  man  shall  see  the  Lord  ;" — that  "  eternal  life 
is  the  gift  of  God,"  and  yet  that  we  must  "  seek  for  glory, 
honor,  and  immortality,  by  a  patient  continuance  in  well 
doing." 

3.  The  reason  why  the  Jews  were  at  length,  with  such 
awful  judgments,  cast  out  from  the  land  of  promise,  cor- 
responds with  these  views.  It  was  unbelief- — rejection  of 
the  person  and  Gospel  of  the  Son  of  God. — "  Because  of 
unbelief  they  were  broken  off,"  says  Paul,  "  and  thou 
standest  by  faith" — Rom  xi.  20.  Moses,  many  hundred 
years  before,  had  denounced  curses  upon  them  if  they 
should  be  disobedient.  These  curses  were  fulfilled  on  ac- 
count of  their  unbelief.  And  this  shows  us  what  kind  of 
disobedience  was  the  ground  of  his  denunciations,  deliv- 
ered in  the  name  of  the  God  of  truth. — See  the  following 
passages  :  Luke  xix.  41 — 44.  Matt,  xxiii.  34 — 39.  1 
Thess.  ii.  15,  16.     Acts  iii.  23,  &c. 

Thus  it  appears,  that  the  promise  of  the  inheritance 
was  originally  through  faith;  that  it  was  as  professors  of 
Abraham's  faith  that  the  Israelites  entered  on  the  pos- 
session of  Canaan  ;  that  the  possession  was  continued 
through  the  obedience  of  faith  ;  and  that  on  account  of 
their  disobedience — disobedience  springing  from  unbelief 
and  including  it — judgments  were  threatened  and  inflict- 
ed ;  that  by  faith  the  inheritance  was  obtained  ;  that  by 
faith  it  was  held,  and  that  by  unbelief  it  vyas  lost. 

I  have  said,  that,  whilst  trie  promises  of  the  covenant 
with  Abiaham  were  made  to  the  patriarch  and  his  spirit- 
ual seed,  there  was  in  them  at  the  same  time  a  primary 
respect  to  his  natural  offspring,  among  whose  successive 
generations  that  seed  was  to  be  raised  up.       This  obser- 


SECTION    r. 


49 


ration  is  of  essential  consequence  to  our  present  subject; 
and  I  have  yet  seen  no  reason  to  shrink  from  the  position. 
The  following  is  the  argument  of  my  former  publication, 
referred  to  in  the  preface,  in  support  of  it. 

It  has  been  said,  that  '  if  spiritual  blessings  were  prom- 
ised, in  that  covenant,  to  the  fleshly  seed  as  such,  then  it 
behoved  all  the  fleshly  seed  to  possess  them,  and  to  be  sav- 
ed ;  which  is  contrary  to  fact,  and  therefore  inconsistent 
with  the  faithfulness  of  God.'  Those  who  make  this  ob- 
jection, conceive  the  temporal  promise  to  have  been  made 
to  the  fleshly  seed,  and  the  spiritual  promise  to  the  spirit- 
ual seed.  It  ought  to  be  remembered,  however,  that,  the 
reasoning  which  holds  good  as  to  the  spiritual  promise,  is, 
in  point  of  fact,  equally  conclusive  as  to  the  temporal. 
'If  the  land  of  Canaan,  and  its  temporal  blessings,  were 
promised  by  God  to  the  fleshly  seed  of  Abraham  as  such, 
then  it  behoved  all  the  fleshly  seed  to  inherit  and  enjoy 
them,  which  is  contrary  to  fact,  and  therefore  inconsistent 
with  the  faithful nes  of  God.'  The  truth  is,  as  I  have  at- 
tempted to  show,  that  neither  the  one  promise  nor  the  oth- 
er was  made  to  the  fleshly  seed,  merely  as  such;  and  that 
the  principle,  '  they  are  not  all  Israel  who  are  of  Israel,' 
is  the  only  principle,  on  which  the  Divine  faithfulness  can 
be,  in  either  case,  vindicated  and  maintained.  '  What  if 
some  did  not  believe  ?  Shall  their  unbelief  make  the 
faithfulness  of  God  of  no  effect  ?     God  forbid.' 

This  view  is  by  no  means  at  variance  with  the  idea  of 
that  primary  respect,  of  which  I  now  speak,  as  being  had, 
in  the  promise,  to  the  natural  offspring  ;  a  respect,  not 
merely  primary  according  to  the  order  of  time,  but  accord- 
ing to  a  peculiarity  of  regard,  and  according  to  what  may 
be  termed  the  natural  course  of  things. — That  any  peculiar 
regard  or  favor  is  shown  to  children  on  account  of  their  pa- 
rents, is  by  many  strongly  denied  ;  as  being  inconsistent 
with  the  freedom  of  Divine  grace.  But  that  God  does  show 
such  regard  to  children,  for  the  sake  of  their  parents,  we 
find  both  intimated  and  exemplified,  in  many  parts  of  the 
scripture  history.  God  represents  himself*  as  '  visiting 
the  iniquities  of  the  fathers  upon  the  children,   unto  the 

*  Exod.  xx.  5,  6. 


50  SECTION    I. 

third  and  fourth  generation  of  them  that  hate  him,  and 
showing  mercy  unto  thousands  (of  generations)  of  them 
that  love  him  and  keep  his  commandments.'  Now,  with- 
out entering  into  any  discussion  of  the  precise  or  full 
meaning  of  these  expressions,  I  would  merely  remark, 
that  the  latter  surely  cannot  be  considered,  as  less  consis- 
tent with  the  freedom  of  mercy,  than  the  former  with  the 
strictness  of  justice. — There  is  an  expression  also  used 
by  Paul,  respecting  the  Jews  in  their  present  state  of  un- 
belief, which  appears  to  me  inexplicable,  except  on  some 
such  principle  : — '  As  touching  the  election,'  says  he, 
\they  are  beloved  for  the  father's  sakcs.'*  If  a  peculiar- 
ity of  regard  is  not,  in  these  words,  expressed  towards 
the  natural  '  seed  of  Abraham,  God's  friend,'  for  the  sake 
of  him,  and  of  their  other  godly  fathers,  with  whom  Je- 
hovah established  his  covenant,  I  am  at  a  loss  to  imagine 
what  meaning  the  expression  can  have. 

Besides  :  in  the  idea  suggested  there  is  nothing  incon- 
sistent with  the  free  operation  of  Divine  grace  ;  because 
this  grace,  in  its  various  blessings,  being  conveyed  to  sin- 
ners by  means,  it  is  quite  according  to  the  natural  order 
of  things,  that  it  should  accompany  those  means,  and  flow 
with  them,  as  it  were,  in  the  same  channel.  If,  therefore, 
the  knowledge  of  God,  the  means  by  which  the  blessings 
of  salvation  come  to  be  enjoyed,  was  appointed  to  be  con- 
veyed from  generation  to  generation,  we  must  suppose  the 
blessings  to  be  conveyed  along  with  it,  and  the  convey- 
ance of  the  blessings  to  be  the  grand  design  of  the  con- 
veyance of  the  knowledge.  There  is  no  other  design, 
which  we  can  imagine  God  to  have  had.  And,  therefore, 
although  the  grace  of  God  is  not  imparted  by  fleshly  birth, 
all  being  'conceived  in  sin,  and  brought  forth  in  iniquity  ;' 
yet,  that  when  God's  people  are  attentive  to  the  means  ap- 
pointed, this  grace  should  appear  descending  through  their 
generations,  cannot  at  all  be  matter  of  wonder.  If  God 
has  been  pleased  to  make  the  promises  of  his  covenant, 
with  a  primary  reference  to  the  generations  of  his  people, 
as  the  line  in  which,  by  the  communication  of  the  knowl- 
edge of  his  name,  the  blessings  of  his  grace  should  flow, 

*  Rom.  xi.  28. 


SECTION    I.  51 

(though  not  to  the  exclusion  of  others  from  being,  in  his 
sovereign  pleasure,  brought  within  the  bond  of  his  cove- 
nant ;)  and  if,  in  the  token  of  his  covenant,  he  has  given 
his  people  encouragement,  to  indulge  the  believing  expec- 
tation, of  his  mercy  being  imparted,  through  the  use  of 
appointed  means,  to  their  offspring,  as  well  as  to  them- 
selves; it  becomes  a  very  serious  matter,  to  treat  this  en- 
couragement, which  regards  the  dearest  and  most  inter- 
esting of  all  concerns,  to  a  believing  parent's  heart  with 
indifference  or  neglect. 

That  the  promise  had  a  primary  respect  to  the  fleshly 
seed  of  believing  Abraham,  implying  as  its  first  import, 
not  indeed  that  alt  his  fleshly  seed  should  be  saved,  but 
that  amongst  them  there  should  be  a  seed  to  serve  the 
Lord,  may,  I  think,  be  established  from  the  following  pas- 
sages of  the  word  of  God. 

I.  Gen.  xviii.  17 — 19.  '  And  the  Lord  said,  shall  1  hide 
from  Abraham  that  thing  which  I  do;  seeing  that  Abra- 
ham shall  become  a  great  and  mighty  nation,  and  all  the 
nations  of  the  earth  shall  be  blessed  in  him  ?  For  I  know 
him,  that  he  will  command  his  children  and  his  household 
after  him,  and  they  shall  keep  the  way  of  the  Lord,  to  do 
justice  and  judgment;  that  the  Lord  may  bring  upon 
Abraham  that  which  he  hath  spoken  of  him.' 

The  most  inattentive  reader  wiil  perceive,  that,  in  this 
passage,  the  character  given  of  Abraham  is  connected 
with  the  fulfilment  of  God's  promise  to  him.  It  is  equal- 
ly obvious,  that  the  authoritative  instruction  of  his  family 
could  have  no  influence  in  accomplishing  the  promise  of  a 
carnal,  but  of  a  spiritual  seed.  His  acting  in  the  man- 
ner described  was  the  means,  by  which  God  verified  his 
word  ;  giving  him  such  a  seed,  from  among  his  natural 
offspring,  by  the  communication  of  the  knowledge  of  God 
to  his  family,  and  from  them  downwards,  through  successive 
generations.  By  this  means,  God  '  brought  upon  Abra- 
ham that  which  he  had  spoken  of  him  ;  proving  '  a  God 
to  hirn,  and  to  his  seed  after  him  in  their  generations.' 
And  in  the  same  manner,  'the  generation  of  the  upright' 
continued  to  be  'blessed' — '  God's  righteousness  being  to 
children's  children,  to  such  as  keep  his  covenant,  and  re- 
membered his  commandments  to  do  them.' 


62 


SECTION    r. 


II.  Rom.  xi.  1.  ■  I  say  then,  hath  God  cast  away  his 
people  ?  God  forbid  !  For  I  also  am  an  Israelite,  cf  the 
seed  of  Abraham,  of  the  tribe  of  Benjamin.' — The  Apos- 
tle here  begins  to  prove,  that  God  had  not  cast  off  his  peo- 
ple. And  what  is  the  first  consideration,  which  he  sug- 
gests? That  he  himself,  whom  God  had  blessed  with 
salvation,  was  a  descendant  of  Abraham,  after  the  flesh. 
For,  that  he  speaks  of  fleshly  descent,  is  plain,  from  his 
mentioning  '  the  tribe  of  Benjamin,'  along  with  the  '  seed 
of  Abraham.' 

Two  things  may  be  observed  from  this  passage.  1st. 
If  there  had  not  been  such  a  primary  respect  to  the  fleshly 
seed,  as  I  am  endeavoring  to  establish  ;  the  salvation  of 
one  belonging  to  the  fleshly  seed,  could  never,  with  pro- 
priety, have  been  adduced,  as  any  peculiar  or  appropri- 
ate evidence,  that  '  God  had  not  cast  away  his  people.' 
The  salvation  of  a  Gentile  would  have  been  quite  as  much 
to  the  purpose  ;  the  '  election'  among  the  Gentiles  being 
the  people  of  God,  as  well  as  among  the  Jews.  And  the 
Apostle  might  have  quoted  the  case  of  Cornelius,  or  of 
the  Philippian  jailor,  with  as  much  conclusive  effect,  as 
his  own.  2dly.  It  seems  equally  evident,  that,  while  there 
was  a  primary  respect  to  the  natural  seed  of  those  to  whom 
the  promises  were  made,  these  promises  never  implied, 
that  all  who  should  descend  from  them,  by  fleshly  birth, 
should  partake  of  the  blessings.  For  of  this,  the  salvation 
of  an  individual,  or  of'  a  remnant  according  to  the  elec- 
tion of  grace,'  however  numerous,  would  have  been  a 
proof  totally  inconclusive. 

III.  Jer.  xxxi.  31—33.  Heb.  viii.  8—10.  '  Behold  the 
days  come,  saith  the  Lord,  that  I  will  make  a  new  cove- 
nant with  the  house  of  Israel  and  with  the  house  of  Judah  ; 
not  according  to  the  covenant  that  I  made  with  their  fa- 
thers, &-c.  For  this  is  the  covenant  which  I  will  make 
with  the  house  of  Israel,'  &lc. — When  we  consider  what 
is  so  often  repeated  in  the  New  Testament,  respecting 
the  gospel,  or  new  covenant,  as  being  '  to  the  Jew  first,' 
the  meaning  of  these  passages  appears  sufficiently  obvious. 
They  represent  the  new  covenant  as  made  with  the  same 
people,  with  whom  the  old  was  made, — i  the  house  of  Is- 
rael/— the   natural  seed  of  Abraham,   Isaac,  and  Jacob, 


SECTION 


5:3 


And  this  was  fulfilled,  when  to  them  first,  God,  having 
raised  up  his  Son  Jesus,  sent  him  to  bless  them,  in  turn- 
ing away  every  one  of  them  from  their  iniquities,'  Acts, 
iii.  26.  These  words  immediately  follow  an  address  of 
the  Apostle  Peter,  to  the  unbelieving  Jews,  which  appears 
to  put  this  matter  beyond  a  doubt:  '  Ye  are  the  children 
of  the  prophets,  says  he,  and  of  the  covenant  which  God 
made  with  our  fathers,  saying  unto  Abraham,  And  in  thy 
seed  shall  all  the  families  of  the  earth  be  blessed/  From 
this  arises  the  encouraging  declaration  immediately  add- 
ed, '  Unto  you  first?  &c.  If  there  had  been,  in  the  prom- 
ises, no  such  primary  reference,  of  peculiar  regard,  to  the 
fleshly  seed,  1  am  at  a  loss  to  conceive,  in  what  sense  the 
Jews  here  addressed,  who  had  no  relation  to  Abraham 
but  that  of  carnal  descent,  could  be  denominated  the  child- 
ren of  the  covenant  made  with  the  fathers,  not  as  con- 
taining the  promise  of  temporal  blessings  only,  but  the 
promise  of  the  glorious  gospel  of  the  blessed  God. — 'To 
them  (says  the  apostle,  in  the  ninth  chapter  of  the  epistle 
to  the  Romans,  speaking  of  his  '  kinsmen  according  to 
the  flesh,')  'to  them  pertained  the  adoption,  and  the  glo- 
ry, and  the  covenants,  and  the  giving  of  the  law,  and  the 
service  of  God,  and  the  promises.' 

If  this  primary  respect  to  the  fleshly  seed  be  admitted, 
it  is  all  that  I  desire  to  establish  in  behalf  of  the  carnal 
relation." 

Mr.  Maclean's  strictures  on  this  reasoning  have  only 
served  to  establish  me  in  the  conviction  of  its  truth.  He 
first  "  freely  admits,  that  the  promises  made  to  Abraham 
had  a  primary  respect  to  his  natural  offspring."  "But," 
he  adds,  ;'  on  this  subject  we  must  distinguish  Abraham's 
natural  offspring  into  the  children  of  the  flesh  and  the 
children  of  the  proinise,  and  also  the  promises  themselves 
into  temporal  and  spiritual:" — and  from  the  laying  down 
of  this  usual  distinction,  any  reader  that  has  the  slightest 
portion  of  s  gacity,  and  of  acquaintance  with  this  contro- 
versy, might  anticipate  the  manner  in  which  it  is  applied. 
— The  sagacity  of  the  same  reader,  however,  may  enable 
him  to  perceive,  that  the  whole  of  my  argument  and  illus- 
tration regarded  the  primary  respect  of  the  spiritual  prom-* 
*5 

% 


54  SECTION    I. 

ises  to  the  fleshly  seed.  I  should  have  been  doing  a  very 
useless  thing  indeed,  had  I  set  myself  to  prove  the  prima- 
ry reference  to  this  seed  of  the  temporal  promises  :  (or  I 
should  have  been  proving  what  no  one  questioned.  Now, 
what  I  have  contended  for,  Mr.  Maclean  in  substance  ad- 
mits :  "  As  to  the  spiritual  promises  which  are  included 
in  the  blessing  of  Abraham,  such  as  justification,  the  pro- 
mise of  the  Spirit,  the  true  adoption  of  sons,  &lc.  these 
had  also  &  primary,  though  not  a  peculiar  or  exclusive  re- 
spect to  Abraham's  natural  offspring.  That  they  had  not 
an  exclusive  respect  to  them,  is  clear  from  the  very  words 
of  the  covenant  with  Abraham  on  which  the  Apostle's  ar- 
gument is  founded,  viz.  '  In  thee,'  or  'in  thy  seed,  shall 
all  the  nations  of  the  earth  be  blessed,'  which  includes 
Gentiles  as  well  as  Jews,  Gal.  iii.  8,  14,  16,  17,  28  ;  and 
with  this  the  facts  recorded  in  the  accomplishment  of  that 
promise  fully  agree."* 

These  positions  he  proceeds  to  establish,  much  in  the 
same  way  as  I  have  myself  done  above.  And  when  he 
subjoins,  "  Thus  the  spiritual  promises  had  a  primay  re- 
spect to  the  natural  offspring  of  Abraham  :  but  as  the 
bulk  of  that  nation  rejected  Christ  when  he  came,  and 
persecuted  his  followers,  neither  their  being  the  circum- 
cised seed  of  Abraham,  nor  their  national  relation  to  God 
by  the  Sinai  covenant,  could  entitle  them  to  the  privileges 
of  the  free  sons  and  heirs  ;  and  so  they  were,  like  the 
bond-woman  and  her  son,  cast  out  of  God's  house  :" — he 
says  what  I  heartily  subscribe  to.  The  distinctions  made 
are  essential  to  my  own  argument. 

Mr.  Maclean  labors  hard  with  the  passage  Rom.  xi.  28. 
"  As  touching  the  election,  they  are  beloved  for  the  fath- 
ers' sakes." — After  stating  his  objection  to  its  being  un- 
derstood as  implying  any  regard,  in  the  bestowment  of 
spiritual  blessings,  to  the  character  of  their  godly  pro- 
genitors,— namely,  the  apparent  inconsistency  of  such  a 
sentiment  with  the  freedom  of  grace, — he  proceeds  to  say 
— "  I  apprehend,  therefore,  that  when  the  Apostle  says, 
'  As  concerning  the  election,  they  are  beloved  for  the  fath- 
ers' sakes,'   he   means,   for  the  sake  of  that   which  God 

*  Review,  p.  88;  89. 


SECTION    1. 


55 


promised  to  their  fathers.  The  promise  to  Abraham  was, 
*  In  thee.'  or  *  in  thy  seed,  shall  all  the  nations  of  the 
earth  be  blessed.'  Gen.  xii.  3,  xxii.  IS.  This,  the  Apos- 
tle informs  us,  was  the  covenant  which  was  confirmed  be- 
fore of  God  in  Christ,  and  in  which  the  gospel  was  be- 
fore preached  to  Abraham  ;  and  he  explains  this  seed  in 
whom  the  nations  were  to  be  blessed,  and  to  whom  the 
promises  were  made,  to  be  Christ."     Gal.  iii.  8,  16,  17.* 

This  view  of  the  passage  is  liable  to  the  following  ob- 
jections : — 

1.  Mr.  Maclean  understands  'the  election'  as  meaning 
the  persons  elected;  and  the  pronoun  they  as  having  these 
persons  for  its  antecedent, — "  they,  (i.  e.  the  election,) 
are  beloved  for  the  fathers'  sakes."  But  the  structure  of 
the  entire  verse  will  hardly  admit  of  this  : — "  As  concern- 
ing the  gospel,  they  are  enemies  for  your  sakes ;  but  as 
touching  the  election,  they  are  beloved  for  the  fathers' 
sakes." — It  seems  evident,  that  the  pronoun  "  they,"  in 
the  two  clauses  of  the  verse,  has  the  same  antecedent.  It 
relates  to  the  race  of  the  Jews, — not  the  then  existing  gen- 
eration, but  ■the  race  generally,  considered  as  the  offspring 
of  the  ancient  fathers.  The  same  mode  of  expression 
occurs  in  all  the  preceding  context — where  the  Apostle, 
speaking  of  the  future  restoration  of  Israel,  says — "  And 
they  also,  if  they  abide  not  still  in  unbelief,  shall  be  graft- 
ed in  ;  for  God  is  able  to  graft  them  in  again,"  &,c.  ver- 
ses 23 — 27.  Although  the  pronoun  them  appears  to  refer 
to  the  branches  which  were  then  broken  off,  yet  the  real 
reference  is,  not  to  the  generation  then  in  being,  but  only 
to  the  same  people  or  race,  at  a  distant  period,  considered 
as  retaining  its  identity  in  its  continued  connection  with 
the  same  original  root  or  stock. 

It  appears  to  me  evident,  that,  in  the  verse  under  con- 
sideration, things  and  persons  are  respectively  set  in  con- 
trast : — "  as  concerning  the  gospel" — "  as  touching  the 
election  :" — "  enemies  for  your  sakes" — "  beloved  for 
the  fathers'  sakes." — "  The  election,"  therefore,  means, 
I  think,  not  the  persons  chosen,  but  the  Dirinc  choice. 
The  word  as  used  in  both  senses  in  the  preceding  part  ol 

*  Review,  p.  92,  93. 


56  SECTION    I. 

the  same  chapter  ;  and  this  acceptation  of  it  here  accords 
with  the  verse  which  follows  ; — "  for  the  gifts  and  calling 
of  God  are  without  repentance  :"  which  in  effect  is  the 
same  assaying,  the  Divine  choice  is  without  repentance. 

2.  That  the  sense  affixed  by  Mr.  Maclean  to  the  phrase, 
"for  the  fathers'  sakes"  is  not  the  natural  one,  is  evident 
from  his  own  admission  in  the  following  words,  which 
conclude  the  paragraph  of  which  I  have  cited  the  begin- 
ning : — "So  that  whatever  temporal  blessings  and  out- 
ward privileges  were  promised  to,  or  conferred  on,  the  na- 
tion of  Israel,  for  the  fathers'  sakes,  vet  the  spiritual 
blessings  of  redemption  which  were  peculiar  to  the  elect 
among  them,  are  promised  and  bestowed  only  for  chiust's 
sake." — This  is  as  much  as  to  say,  that  if  the  phrase,  "  for 
the  fathers'  sakes,"  had  been  used  in  regard  to  temporal 
blessings,  it  might  have  been  allowed  to  mean  what  it  plain- 
ly and  simply  expresses: — but  tha*  as  the  Apostle  is  here 
speaking  of  the  restoration  of  Israel  to  the  church  of  God, 
and  of  tneir  spiritual  salvation,  it  must  signify,  not  what 
it  plainly  expresses,  but  "  for  Christ's  sake."  This  is  ar- 
bitrary. Is  there  any  inconsistency  in  holding,  that,  whilst 
all  the  blessings  of  salvation  are  bestowed  in  free  mercy 
for  Christ's  sake,  yet,  in  conferring  them  on  any  of  the 
posterity  of  his  servants,  the  God  of  grace  may  have  a 
regard  to  the  previous  objects  of  his  love,  and,  in  blessing 
the  offspring,  gratify,  as  it  were,  an  ancient  affection  to  the 
fathers  ?  And  is  not  this  in  perfect  harmony  with  the  lan- 
guage, so  frequent  in  scripture,  which  represents  the  love 
of  God  to  the  fathers  as  terminating  upon  ihe  children  : — 
"  The  Lord  had  a  delight  in  thy  fathers,  to  love  them, 
and  he  chose  their  seed  after  them,  even  you  above  all 
people,  as  it  is  this  day — circumcise  therefore  the  foreskin 
of  your  heart,  and  be  no  more  stiff-necked."* 

3.  The  promise  quoted  by  Mr.  Maclean,  namely,  "In 
thee,"  or  "  in  thy  seed  shall  all  nations  of  the  earth  be 
blessed,"  affords  no  ground  whatever  for  the  inference  of 
a  special  or  primary  regard  to  the  election  among  the 
J<:ivs.  That  promise  relates  alike  to  the  Gentiles  and  to 
the  natural  offspring  of  Abraham  :  and  any  obligations  on 

*  Deut.  x.  15,  16. 


SECTION    I.  57 

the  part  of  God  to  fulfil  a  promise  relative  to  all  nations, 
was  not  at  all  to  the  purpose  of  the  Apostle's  argument. 
The  election  among  the  Gentiles  were  as  much  beloved 
for  the  sake  of  this  promise,  as  the  election  among  the 
Jews.  It  left  no  room  for  a  "  how  much  more"  on  behalf 
of  the  latter.  If  there  was  any  primary  respect  in  it  at 
all,  it  was  rather  to  the  world  at  large  than  to  the  offspring 
of  Abraham:  and  so  the  Apostle  interprets  it  when  he 
says — "  And  the  scripture,  foreseeing  that  God  would  jus- 
tify the  heathen  through  faith,  preached  before  the  gos- 
pel unto  Abraham,  saying,  In  thee  shall  all  nations  be 
blessed."  Gal.  iii.  8.  But  that  a  peculiarity  of  regard  to 
the  "  seed  of  Abraham,  God's  friend,"  is  intended  to  be 
expressed,  is  as  clear  as  words  can  make  it;  and  an  ex- 
planation that  takes  away  the  ground  of  this,  cannot  be 
the  true  one. 

4.  It  ought  to  be  observed,  that  the  promise,  "In  thy 
seed  shall  all  nations  be  blessed,"  is,  according  to  the 
Apostle,  "  the  gospel"  as  preached  to  Abraham.  If,  there- 
fore, "  for  the  fathers'  sakes"  means  for  the  sake  of  that 
promise,  it  means  for  the  sake  of  the  gospel.  What,  then, 
are  we  to  make  of  the  text  1  "  as  concerning  the  gospel, 
they  are  enemies  for  your  sakes  ;  but  as  touching  the 
election,  they  are  beloved  for  the  gospel's  sake  !"  How 
entirely  does  this  destroy  the  antithesis,  and  subvert  the 
argument  of  the  passage  ! 

5.  It  is  very  unfair  in  Mr.  Maclean,  to  introduce  the 
word  merely  into  the  argument,  a  word  which  is  neither 
the  Apostle's  nor  mine  : — "  If  they  were  thus  beloved 
merely  for  the  sake  of  the  godliness  of  their  fathers  ;  Ish- 
mael  and  Esau  with  their  posterities,  and,  at  any  rate,  the 
whole  nation  of  Israel,  must  have  had  an  equal  claim  to 
this  peculiarity  of  divine  regard  ;  for  they  all  sprung  from 
the  same  godly  fathers."  Who  has  ever  said  they  were 
beloved  merely   for  the  sake  of  their  fathers  ?     who  ever 

thought  so  ? As  to  what  is  said  of  "  Ishmael  and  Esau, 

with  their  posterities,"  I  have  only  to  say,  let  the  reader 
look  at  the  text  cited  a  little  ago,  where  Moses  says  to  the 
Jewish  people,  "  God  had  a  delight  in  thy  fathers  to  love 
them,  and  he  chose  their  seed  after  them,  even  you  above 
all  people."     Is  there  or  is  there  not,  any  connection  ititi- 


58  SECTION    I. 

mated  here,  between  the  choice  of  the  seed,  and  the  de- 
light in  the  fathers?  If  there  be,  (and  who  can  question 
it  ?)  the  answer  to  the  objection  lies  not  with  me — name- 
ly, why  God  did  not  choose  Ishmael  and  Esau  with  their 
posterities,  on  account  of  the  same  delight.  The  fact 
that  it  was  otherwise  is  all  in  our  favor  :  for,  seeing  the 
connection  between  the  delight  and  the  choice,  as  between 
a  cause  and  its  effect,  is  so  unequivocally  intimated,  it 
follows,  that  there  is  inconsistency  between  gracious  sov- 
ereignty in  the  choice  of  the  seed,  and  a  regard  of  love 
in  it,  at  the  same  time,  to  the  fathers. 

Mr.  M  iclean  further  objects,  that,  "  as  the  promises 
made  to  Abraham  hid  a  primary  respect  to  his  natural 
offspring,  it  follows  from  this,  that  they  can  have  no  such 
respect  to  the  natural  offspring  of  Gentile  believers,  for 
this  plain  reason,  that  they  cannot  have  two  primary  re- 
spects."*—  But  the  objection  is  more  specious  than  solid. 
The  spiritual  seed  amongst  the  posterity  of  /\braham,  and 
the  spiritual  seed  amongst  the  Gentiles,  are  not  two  spirit- 
ual seeds.  They  are  one  seed,  of  which  Abraham  is  the 
spiritual  father.  The  primary  respect  for  which  I  con- 
tend, was  not,  if  I  may  so  speak,  concentrated  in  Abra- 
ham personally.  It  descended  with  the  possession  of  his 
faith  ;  every  follower  of  that  faith  sharing  in  it,  and  deriv- 
ing from  it  his  encouragement  in  making  known  God's 
"testimony  and  law"  to  his  children,  that  they  too  might 
"  set  their  hope  in  God.''  When  a  Gentile  received  the 
faith  of  Abraham,  and  united  himself  to  the  Israelitish 
church,  the  circumcision  of  his  children  along  with  him 
shotted,  that,  amongst  other  privileges,  he  became  a  par- 
taker in  this  primary  respect  of  the  promises  to  the  natu- 
ral offspring.  At  the  fulness  of  time,  the  Gentiles,  be- 
lieving the  gospel,  and  received  into  the  church,  became 
the  people  of  God.  The  blessing  of  Abraham  came  up- 
on them.  They  became  partakers  and  heirs  of  the  prom- 
ises : — and  the  continuance  among  them  of  the  primary 
respect  to  the  natural  offspring  no  more  constitutes  two 
primary  respects,  than  their  reception  into  the  church  pro- 
duced two  peoples  of  God,  or  two  spiritual  seeds  of  Abra- 
ham. 

*    Review,  p.  93,  94. 


SECTION    II 


In  the  preceding  section,  I  have  endeavored  to  show, 
that  the  covenant  made  with  Abraham  was  the  gospel  cov- 
enant, the  covenant  of  grace,  under  which  we  live,  and 
which  is  the  basis  of  the  New  Testament  church  : — that 
the  ordinance  of  circumcision  was  attached  to  that  cove- 
nant, and,  as  the  eign  of  its  blessings  and  the  seal  of  its 
promises,  was,  by  divine  command,  administered  to  chil- 
dren : — that,  although  there  is  abundant  evideuce  of  a 
change  in  the  rite  or  ordinance,  there  is  none  whatever  of 
any  such  change  in  its  administration,  as  excludes  chil- 
dren from  being  any  longer  the  legitimate  subjects  of  its 
observance: — and  that,  therefore,  whilst  our  baptist  friends 
call  upon  us  for  the  production  of  express  precept,  author- 
izing the  baptism  of  children,  we  are  better  entitled  to 
require  the  production  of  such  precept  from  them,  repeal- 
ing and  setting  aside  the  ancient  injunction  and  practice, 
which  existed  under  the  same  covenant,  and,  not  belong- 
ing to  the  old  economy,  the  dispensation  of  Moses,  did 
not  necessarily  cease  when  that  economy  "  waxed  old,  and 
vanished  away." 

The  excellence  of  any  process  of  reasoning  consists  in 
its  successfully  eliciting  and  establishing  truth.  The  phi- 
losopher who  contrives  an  experiment,  or  a  course  of  ex- 
periments, by  which  a  controverted  point  in  science  may 
be  satisfactorily  settled,  should  certainly  be  regarded  with 
gratitude.  If  any  brother  philosopher  should  have  form- 
ed to  himself  certain  principles  and  rules,  according  to 
which  all  scientific  inquiries  and  experiments  ought  to  be 
conducted,  and  should  not  only  refuse  to  be  satisfied  by 
the  experiments,  but  even  so  much  as  to  examine  them, 
because  the  process  has  not  been  in  perfect  agreement 
with  his  pre-ordained  regulations,  he  would  justly  be  rep- 


60 


SECTION    II. 


rimanded  as  unreasonable,  as  a  bigot  to  modes  and  forms, 
and  an  enemy  to  knowledge,  unless  it  lias  been  attained 
by  a  particular  route.  No  man  has  any  title  to  complain 
of  any  mode  of  discussion,  or  of  the  sources  from  which 
arguments  are  drawn,  if  he  is  conducted  by  them  to  true 
conclusions  and  right  principles. — I  refer,  in  these  re- 
marks, to  the  exception,  so  generally  and  so  strongly  ta- 
ken by  our  baptist  brethren,  against  all  reasonings  in  sup- 
port of  a  New  Testament  practice,  drawn  from  the  Old 
Testament  scriptures.  It  has  even  been  said,  that  "  those 
who  attempt  to  prove  infant  baptism  from  the  Abrahamic 
covenant,  follow  the  same  course  as  those  who  try  to 
prove  the  propriety  of  the  alliance  between  the  church 
and  the  world.  Many  subtle  arguments,  which  may  per- 
plex, are  also  brought  forward  on  this  subject  from  the 
Old  Testament ;  but  if  any  one  attends  to  the  nature  of 
the  kingdom  of  Christ,  and  to  the  apostolic  instructions 
and  examples,  the  truth  appears  clear  and  "  manifest."* — 
It  does  so  :  but  why  ? — because  the  arguments  drawn  from 
the  Old  Testament,  in  support  of  the  alliance  between 
church  and  state,  have  been  deduced  from  a  perverse 
misapplication  to  the  conduct  of  other  nations,  of  the  pe- 
culiarities of  the  Jewish  people  ;  peculiarities,  which  were 
such  as  no  other  nation  can  be  authorized  to  apply  to 
themselves,  unless  they  can  show,  that  like  Israel  of  old, 
they  have  been  singled  out  by  Jehovah  for  special  purpo- 
ses, that  they  have  been  taken  into  the  same  peculiar  re- 
lation to  himself,  and  have  been  endowed  with  the  same 
peculiar  privileges.  There  never  has  been  a  divinely  au- 
thorized national  church  but  one.  If  it  could  be  shown, 
that  we  found  our  argument  for  infant  baptism  on  any  of 
the  peculiarities  of  that  constitution  ;  that  we  build  our 
reasonings  upon  the  specialities  of  the  old  and  temporary 
covenant ;  that  we  would  bind  the  consciences  of  Chris- 
tians by  what  was  purely  and  exclusively  Mosaic  ; — there 
might  be  some  justice  in  the  above  comparison.  But  it  is 
not  so.  The  argument  drawn  from  the  Abrahamic  cove- 
nant, is  founded  on  the  very  consideration,  that   it  is  not 

*  Mr    Haldane's  Reasons  of  a  Change  in  Sentiment  and  Practice  in  the 
Subject  of  Baptism,  p.  93. 


SECTION    II.  61 

exclusively  Mosaic  ;  thnt,  on  the  contrary,  it  existed  cen- 
turies before  the  Sinaitic  constitution,  and  was  entirely 
independent  of  it;  that  it  is  the  covenant  of  grace;  and 
that,  in  arguing  from  it,  we  do  not  argue  from  one 
eovenatit  to  another,  hut  from  the  same  covenant  in  dif- 
ferent states  of  its  progressive  revelation. — The  only  ques- 
tion with  regard  to  any  argument  ought  to  be,  Is  it  scrip- 
tural?—  not,  From  which  of  the  two  Testaments  has  it 
been  drawn  ?  If  both  be  scriptuie,  it  may  be  as  scriptu- 
ral when  drawn  from  the  one  as  from  the  other:  and  if 
it  be  scriptural,  it  is  valid  ;  for  "  all  scripture  is  given  by 
inspiration  of  God."  There  is  a  glorious  and  beautiful 
harmony  in  Divine  revelation.  If  my  argument  from  Mo- 
ses makes  him  inconsistent  with  Paul,  1  must  be  in  the 
wrong;  but  if  another's  argument  from  Paul  makes  him 
inconsistent  with  Moses,  he  must  be  equally  in  the  wrong. 
That  system  is  the  right  one,  which  harmonizes  the  dif- 
ferent discoveries  of  the  Divine  mind,  and  shows  the  con- 
sistency of  scripture  with  itself. 

It  has  been  alleged,  moreover,  as  a  general  reply  to  the 
strain  of  reasoning  in  the  preceding  section,  that,  in  re- 
gard to  infant  biptism,  the  Neio  Testament  is  silent ;  — 
and  this  silence  alone  is  sufficient  to  set  it  aside.  The  pas- 
sage usually  quoted  in  support  of  this  sentiment, — quoted 
by  men  of  sense  and  discrimination,  and  reiterated  by 
men  of  neither, — is  Heb.  vii.  14.  "  For  it  is  evident,  that 
our  Lord  sprang  out-of  Judith;  of  which  tribe  Moses  spoke 
nothing  concerning  priesthood." — I  have  been  surprised,  I 
confess,  at  the  citation  of  this  text  f>r  such  a  purpose. 
The  two  cases  are  essentially  different.  In  the  first  place, 
the  express  command  of  God  confined  the  priesthood  in 
Israel  to  a  particular  tribe, — the  tribe  of  Levi.  The  in- 
trusion of  others  was  unhtll owed  presumption,  and  pun- 
ished with  deith.  The  phnse,  therefore,  "Moses  spake 
nothing,"  evidently  means  m  >r?,  in  this  connection,  than 
mere  silence; — namely ^  that  the  law  which  restricted  the 
priesthood  to  the  tribe  of  Levi,  was  a  law  ei:c'usive  of  all 
others, — so  that,  by  this  limiting  and  excluding  statute, 
Judah  h  id  nothing  to  do  with  the  priesthood.  When  our 
brethren  shtll  have  made  out,  from  scripture,  as  exclusive 
a  law  for  believer  baptism,  as  the  law  which  confined 
6 


SECTION    II. 


the  priesthood  to  the  tribe  of  Levi,  they  will  have  done 
something  to  the  purpose.  Their  argument  will  then 
bear  some  resemblance  in  validity  to  that  of  the  apostle. 
But  until  they  shall  have  done  this,  their  reference  to  such 
a  passage  will  continue  a  mere  begging  of  the  question. — 
Secondly,  We  deny  the  truth  of  the  affirmation,  that  the 
New  Testament  is  silent  on  the  subject.  We  think  it  con- 
tains intimations  of  the  connection  of  children  with  their 
parents,  in  the  promises  of  the  covenant,  and  the  blessings 
of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  and  also  ol  the  apostolic  prac- 
tice in  regard  to  their  baptism,  exactly  such  as  the  circum- 
stances of  the  case  might  have  led  us  to  expect. 

I  must  again  repeat,  that  proofs  of  the  fact  of  adult  or 
believer  baptism,  are  nothing  to  the  purpose  ;  because 
they  are  proofs  of  what  nobody  disputes.  The  question 
stands  thus  : — Our  baptist  brethren  adduce  passages  on 
their  side  of  the  controversy,  in  which  persons  are  said  to 
have  "  believed  and  been  baptized" — to  have  been  "  bapti- 
zed both  men  and  women" — to  have  "gladly  received  the 
word  and  been  baptized  "  &,c.  But  we,  on  our  part,  say, 
these  passages  prove  what  to  us  requires  no  proof.  They 
prove  adults  to  have  been  baptized  on  a  profession  of  the 
faith— but  they  do  not  cfa'sprove  the  baptism  of  the  chil- 
dren of  proselytes.  Yes,  say  the  baptists,  they  do  disprove 
it;  for,  as  to  the  baptism  of  any  besides  the  believing 
adults  themselves,  the  scriptures  are  silent.  They  "  speak 
nothing"  concerning  the  baptism  of  infants  :  therefore 
infants  ought  not  to  be  baptized.  Now,  this  is  what  we 
deny-  It  is  precisely  here  that  we  are  at  issue.  We  say, 
they  are  not  silent.  We  affirm,  in  the  terms  of  the  sec- 
ond of  our  three  propositions,  that  there   is   abundant 

EVIDENC  :  OF  THE  FACT.  THAT,  INSTEAD  OF  ANY  CHANGE, 
EXCLUSIVE  OF  CHILDREN,  HAVING  TAKEN  PLACE  UNDER 
THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  DISPENSATION,  THE  CHILDREN  OF 
CONVERTS  TO  THE  FAITH  OF  THE  GOSPEL  WERE  ACTUALLY 
BAPTIZED  ALONG  WITH  THEIR  PARENTS,  IN  THE  TIME  OP 
THE  APOSTLES    AND    THE    APOSTOLIC  CHURCHES.       To    the 

establishment  of  this  proposition  I  now  proceed.  I  shall 
state  and  illustrate  a  series  of  observations,  all  hearing  us 
forward  towards  our  conclusion,  and  some  of  them  in  my 
apprehension,  sufficient  of  themselves,  to  settle  it. 


SECTION    II. 


I.  It  is  very  common,  to  speak  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testament  churches,  as  if  they  were  quite  distinct  from 
each  other;  as  if,  when  the  latter  was  introduced,  the 
former  had  heen  entirely  removed,  and  succeeded  by 
something  totally  new.  But  this  is  far  from  being  the 
style  in  which  the  matter  is  represented,  either  in  the  Old 
Testament  scriptures,  or  in  the  New.  In  both,  the  ancient 
church  is  spoken  of,  not  as  annihilated,  and  succeeded 
by  another,  but  as  visited,  comforted,  purified,  raised  up, 
and  gloriously  restored  from  decline  and  corruption.  If 
in  some  passages  the  idea  of  complete  renovation  appears 
to  be  suggested,  we  need  not  be  surprised  that  such  lan- 
guage should  be  applied  to  a  change  in  the  state  of  the 
church  so  remarkable, — to  a  revival  so  eminently  glorious. 
The  prosperity  of  the  church  in  the  latter  days  is  repre- 
sented by  the  "  creation  of  new  heavens  and  a  new  earth, 
so  that  the  former  should  not  be  remembered,  nor  come 
into  mind." — If  such  language  is  employed  to  elevate  our 
conceptions  and  anticipations  of  that  blessed  era,  we 
might  surely  expect  terms  somewhat  similar  to  be  used, 
in  reference  to  the  time  when  "  God  was  to  be  manifest- 
ed in  the  flesh,"  "  a  light  to  lighten  the  Gentiles,  and  the 
glory  of  his  people  Israel." 

The  fact  is,  that  when  the  prophets  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment predict  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles  at  the  fulness  of 
time,  they  represent  them  as  brought  in  to  the  previously 
existing  church,  although  in  its  renovated  and  remodelled 
state  : — and  when  the  prophets  of  the  New  Testament 
foretell  the  restoration  of  the  Jews,  it  is  under  the  idea  of 
being  brought  in  again  to  the  same  church  from  which, 
on  account  of  their  unbelief,  they  had  been  ejected.  I 
might  multiply  passages  in  proof  of  these  positions.  I 
shall  content  myself  with  two  or  three  as  a  specimen. 

The  first  is  Isaiah  xlix.  20 — 22,  where  Zion,  or  the 
church  is  represented  as  complaining  of  the  loss  of  her 
children,  in  prospect  of  the  casting  off  of  so  great  a  mul- 
titude of  the  ancient  people  of  God  ;  and  she  is  comfort- 
ed and  cheered  with  the  assurance  of  an  abundant  in- 
crease from  another  quarter  : — "  The  children  which  thou 
shalt  have,  after  thou  hast  lost  the  other,  shall  say  again 
in  thine  ears,  The  place  is  too  strait  for  me  :  give  place 


64  SECTION    II. 

to  me  that  I  may  dwell.  Then  shalt  thou  say  in  thine 
heart,  Who  hath  begotten  me  these,  seeing  I  have  lost  my 
children,  and  am  desolate,  a  captive,  and  removing  to  and 
fro?  and  who  hath  brought  np  these?  Behold,  I  was 
left  alone  ;  these,  where  had  they  been  ?  Thus  saith  the 
Lord  God,  Behold,  I  will  lift  np  mine  hand  ;o  the  Gen- 
tiles, and  set  up  my  standard  to  the  people  :  and  they 
shall  bring  thy  sons  in  their  arms,  and  thy  daughters  shall 
be  carried  upon  their  shoulders." 

Of  the  next  passage,  Amos  ix.  11,  12,  we  have  an  in- 
spired interpretation,  in  perfect  harmony  with  the  princi- 
ple we  are  endeavoring  to  establish  : — "  In  that  day  will  I 
raise  up  the  tabernacle  of  David  that  is  fallen,  and  close 
up  the  breaches  thereof;  and  I  will  raise  up  his  ruins, 
and  I  will  build  it  as  in  the  days  of  old  :  That  they  may 
possess  the  remnant  of  Edom,  and  of  all  the  heathen,  which 
are  called  by  my  name,  saith  the  Lord  that  doeth  this." 
How  is  this  prediction  explained  in  the  New  Testament? 
How  was  the  tabernacle  of  David  to  be  raised  up?  How 
was  the  remnant  of  Edom  and  of  all  the  heathen  to  be 
possessed  by  the  ancient  church  ?  The  answer  is,  by  the 
bringing  in  of  the  Gentiles  into  the  church  of  Christ  : — 
Acts  xv.  14 — 17.  "Simeon  hath  declared  how  God  at 
the  first  did  visit  the  Gentiles,  to  take  out  of  them  a  peo- 
ple for  his  name.  And  to  this  agree  the  words  of  the 
prophets  ;  as  it  is  written,  After  this  I  will  return,  and 
will  build  again  the  tabernacle  of  David,  which  is  fallen 
down;  and  I  will  build  again  the  ruins  thereof,  and  I  will 
set  it  up;  that  the  residue  of  men  might  seek  after  the 
Loid,  and  all  the  Gentiles,  upon  whom  my  name  i^>  called, 
saith  the  Lord,  who  doeth  all  these  things."  The  atten- 
tive reader  of  the  Ol  1  Testament  prophecies  will  be  at 
no  loss  to  add  to  these  quotations  many  more. 

The  only  other  passage  1  shall  at  present  adduce  is  a 
very  decisive  one.  from  the  New  Testament,  Rom.  xi.  23, 
24  "  And  they  also,  if  they  abide  not  still  in  unbelief, 
shall  be  grafted  in  :  for  God  is  able  to  graft  them  in  again. 
For  if  thou  wert  cut  out  of  the  olive-tree,  which  is  wild 
by  nature,  and  wert  grafted  contrary  to  nature  into  a  good 
olive-tree  ;  how  much  more  shall  these,  which  be  the  nat- 
ural branches,  be  grafted  into  their  own  olive-tren  ?"  Were 
the  Old  and  New  Testament  churches  entirely  different, 


SECTION    II.  65 

having  no  substantial  points   in  common,  it  is  not  easy  to 
see  with  what  propriety  the  Jews,   in   being  brought  into 
the  latter,  can  be  said  to   be  grafted  into  their  own  olive- 
tree — grafted   in   again,  that   is   into  the  same  olive-tree 
from  which  they  had   been  cut  off. — Mr.  Maclean  indeed 
argues,   that,  by   this  tree  cannot   be    meant   the  national 
church   of  Israel,  because   into  that  church  the  believing 
Gentiles  were  not  grafted.     But  does   not  the  reader  at 
once  perceive  that,  upon  the  same  principle,  it  might  be 
said,  it  cannot  mean  the  New  Testament  church,  because 
from  that  church  the  unbelieving  Jews  were  not  cut  off? 
And  if  it  was  neither  the  Old  Testament  church,  nor  the 
New  Testament  church,  what  church  was  it?     Is  it  not 
very  clear,  that  the   believing  Gentiles  were  grafted   into 
the   same  stock,  from    which  the  unbelieving  Jews  were 
broken  off?     and  if  they  were  grafted  into  the  same  stock, 
they  certainly  became  branches  of  the  same  tree — bran- 
ches, occupying  the  place  of  those  that  had  been  cut  away. 
The  tree   is  not   represented   as  cut  clown,  or  rooted  up ; 
but  as  having  "  some  of  the  branches  broken  off,"  verse  17. 
If  some   were  broken  off,   the   rest  surely  remained ;  and 
when  the  branches  of  the  wild-olive  were  engrafted,  the 
tree  continued.     It  is  not  a  new  tree  planted,  but  an  old 
tree,  mutilated   by   the   cutting  off  a  number  of  its  bran- 
ches, and  filled   up  with  grafts  upon  the  lopped  boughs  : 
*'  Thou  wilt  say  then,  the  branches  were  broken  off  that 
I  might  be   grafted    in:  well;  because  of  unbelief  they 
were  broken  off,  and  thou  standest  by  faith.     Be  not  high- 
minded,  but  fear."     The   branches   that  were  broken  off 
were   the    unbelieving  Jews  ; — those   that  remained  were 
the  spiritual  members  of  the  ancient  church,  and  such  as 
received  the  testimony   of  Jesus  previously  to  the  time  of 
judicial  excision  ;— and  those  that  were  added,  in  the  room 
of  the  cast-away,,  were  the  converted  Gentiles.     It  is  true, 
there  was   an  overturning    of  the   national    form  of  the 
church.     Its  constitution  was  remodelled.     And  the  Gen- 
tiles were  introduced,  though  not  into  the  national  church 
of  Israel,  yet  into  the  church  of  the  living  God  in  its  re- 
modelled state  :  and  I  can  imagine  nothing  clearer,  than 
that  when   the   unbelieving  Jews  are  represented  as,  at  a 
period  yet  future,  to  be   li  grafted  in  again  to  their  owa 
*6 


66  SECTION    II. 

olive-tree,"  the   figure  means  their  being  reintroduced  to- 
the  same  church,  though  under   a  new  form,  from  which 
their  ancestors  were  ejected.     I  have  nowhere  represent- 
ed their  being  "  grafted  in  again"  as  signifying  their  be- 
ing "  put  into  their  former  Jewish  church  state;"   but  on- 
ly their  being  restored   to  the  church  of  God,  in  its  New 
Testament  form. —  It  should  be  recollected,  that  the  church 
which  had  Abraham,  and  Isaac,  and  Jacob  for  its  original 
stock — (we  might  go  even   further  back,    but  this  is  the 
point  of  time  to  the  Apostle's  reasonings  usually  refer) — 
that  this  church  existed   for  more  than  four  centuries  be- 
fore  its  national    constitution    was  formally  organized  at 
Sinai.     The  natural  offspring   of  these  patriarchs,  along 
with  proselytes  from  among  the  Gentiles,  formed  all  along 
the  visible  church   of  God  ;  at  times  indeed  in    a  state  of 
fearful   corruption,    but  still  containing  in  it  his  true  spi- 
ritual people,  until  "  the  time  of  restoration."     Then  "  the 
wicked  were  to  be  shaken  out  of  it."     Those  "  children 
of  the  stock  of  Abraham"   who  were  not  his  children  by 
faith,  though,  on  account  of  their  fleshly  connection  with 
him,  denominated   "  the   natural  branches,"   were   to  be 
cut  off;  and  Gentiles,  becoming  by  faith  children  of  Abra- 
ham, were  to   be  grafted  in,   in    their  room,  and  to  "par- 
take of  the  root  and  fatness  of  the  olive-tree  ;" — that  is, 
to   share   in   the  special    and   enlarged    privileges  of  the 
church,   of  which   Abraham,   Isaac,  and  Jacob  were  the 
original  stock  ;  which  was  rooted   in   the  covenant  made 
with  these  patriarchs  ;  and  which,  though  varying  its  form 
and   external  constitution   and  aspect,  has  been  substan- 
tially the  same  from   the  beginning.     I  might  venture  to 
say,  that  the  whole  style   of  prophetic  representation   of 
that  which  was  to   come,   proceeds  upon  the  principle  of 
the  substantial  identity  of  the  church  ; — and  with  this  the 
language  of  the  New  Testament  writers  agrees. — I  have 
before  referred  to  the  terms  in  which  the  prophets  describe 
the  church   as,    at  the  fulness  of  time,   to  be  visited,  re- 
stored, and  purified.     It  is  ridiculous  to  speak    of  this  as 
if  it  meant  its  entire  annihilation,  and  the  substitution  of 
another  in  its  room.     Some  of  the  passages  are  very  re- 
markable.    Let  one  suffice.     Speaking  of  the  coming  of 
the  Messiah,  the  "  Messenger  of  the  covenant,"  the  proph- 


SECTION    II.  67 

et  Malachi  says,  chap.  iii.  2,  3. — "  But  who  may  abide  the 
day  of  his  coming?  and  who  shall  stand  when  he  appear- 
eth  1  for  he  is  like  a  refiner's  fire,  and  like  fullers'  soap  : 
And  he  shall  sit  as  a  refiner  and  purifier  of  silver  ;  and 
he  shall  purify  the  sons  of  Levi,  and  purge  them  as  gold 
and  silver,  that  they  may  offer  unto  the  Lord  an  offering 
in  righteousness."  This  purification  of  his  church  was 
effected,  by  casting  out  the  wicked  in  wrath,  and  by  bring- 
ing the  remnant  through  the  fire,  in  mercy  :  See  the  sub- 
sequent verses,  and  Zech.  xiii.  8,  9. — When  the  prophet 
adds,  "Then  shall  the  offering  of  Judah  and  Jerusalem 
be  pleasant  unto  the  Lord,  as  in  the  days  of  old  and  as  in 
former  years," — there  can  be  no  doubt  that  he  refers  to 
the  spiritual  worship  of  the  New  Testament  church.  But 
this  is  not  the  worship  of  a  church  entirely  new,  but  of 
the  old  church  renovated  and  purified  ; — and  it  is  com- 
pared, in  its  acceptableness,  to  that  of  the  church  in  for- 
mer times,  in  the  purest  and  best  periods  of  her  ancient 
history. — When  the  Gentiles  are  brought  in  to  the  church 
of  Christ,  they  are  described  as  having  been  previously 
"  aliens  from  the  commonwealth  of  Israel,"  but  as  now 
"  no  longer  strangers  and  foreigners,  but  fellow-citizens 
with  the  saints,  and  of  the  household  of  God."  Eph.  ii. 
1*2.  19. 

But  it  would  be  endless  to  dilate.  Enough  has  been 
said  in  support  of  my  first  position. 

II.  My  second  is,  that  we  ought  to  bear  in  mind,  what 
was  the  previous  state  of  things  in  regard  to  children,  and 
their  connection  with  their  parents  in  the  application  of 
the  sign  and  seal  of  the  covenant. — What  this  was,  I  need 
not  repeat.  I  merely  remind  the  reader  of  it.  The  con- 
nection, and  the  symbolical  recognition  of  it,  existed  not 
only  amongst  Jewish  families  themselves,  but  extended  to 
the  case  of  Gentiles  professing  the  faith  of  Abraham, — 
proselytes  to  Judaism.  A  head  of  a  family  was  received 
into  the  community  of  Israel,  with  his  household.  When 
I  say,  with  his  household,  I  mean  his  infant  children,  and 
such  of  the  adults  as  professed  the  same  faith  with  himself. 
I  make  this  restriction,  because  the  notion  which  some 
have  entertained,  that  adults  in  a  family  were,  upon  the 
conversion  of  the  head,  compelled,  upon  pain  of  death,  to 


68  SECTION    II. 

go  over  with  him  to  the  new  religion,  is  so  revolting  to 
every  principle  of  justice  and  reason,  involving  the  es- 
tablishment, by  divine  authority,  of  a  system  of  per>ecu- 
tion  unto  death  tor  conscience  sake.  —  that  I  cannot  as- 
sent to  it;  nor  do  I  conceive  that  there  is  any  thing  in 
the  record,  that  may  not  be  fairly  explained,  without  the 
admission  of  a  supposition  so  monstrous.  But  on  this  I 
must  not  here  insist.*     What  I   wish  the  reader  now  to 

*  When  any  interpretation  of  a  divine  law  proceeds  on  a  supposition,, 
that  is  diametrically  at  variance  with  the  grand  moral  principles  ul  the  Bi- 
ble, and  the  divinely  sanctioned  rights  oi  conscience,  I  feel  myself  war- 
ranted, in  not  merely  suspecting-,  but  concluding-,  that  it  involves  some  mis- 
take. The  auihor  of  *'  Eugenia  and  Bpenetus,"  previously  to  the  publi- 
cation of  that  work,  submitted  to  me.  a>  a  friend,  some  parts  of  the  manu- 
script, requesting  my  remarks  I  offered  a  few  strictures  in  reply.  These 
are  repeatedly  referred  to  in  die  work,  though,  in  conformity  with  my  re- 
sire,  without  the  mention  of  my  name,  which,  a^  the  remarks  were  but  brief 
and  hasty,  I  did  not  wish  at  the  time  to  be  introduced.  1  have  now  no  ob- 
jections to  avow  myself  the  writer  of  the  following  paragraph,  at  p.  85  of 
those  '■  Conversations,"  designed  to  illustrate,  by  a  parallel  case,  what  I 
conceive  to  be  the  true  spirit  of  the  injunction  that  "  all  the  males"  ot  Gen- 
tile proselytes  should  be  circumcised,  before  these  proselytes  themselves 
could  be  admitted  to  eat  the  passover. — "  Suppose  the  government  of  any 
country  to  enact  a  law,  that  all  foreigners  desiious  of  settling  in  the  country 
as  subjects,  should,  in  order  to  their  enjoying  the  privileges  of  subjects, 
have  a  particular  marK  affixed  in  their  forehead  or  right  hand  Apply  ibis 
enactment  to  the  case  of  the  head  of  a  family  having,  let  us  say,  twenty 
adults.  Suppose  four  of  these  are  un willing  to  receive  the  necessary  mark  : 
would  it  be  at  all  rational  interpretation  of  the  l.iw,  that  therefore  he  could 
leave  these  four,  and  setile  in  the  country  with  the  remaining  sixteen,  who 
were  willing  to  accompany  him  on  the  prescribed  condition  ?  The  obliga- 
tion arising  from  such  a  law  would  never  be  interpreted  as  amounting  to — 
1  You  must  have  a  mark  affixed  to  the  body  of  ei  erv  adult,  as  well  as  every 
infant,  now  in  your  family.  You  cannot  settle  in  the  county,  if  but  one  of 
these  refuses  to  submit  to  this  mark,  not  even  on  the  ground  of  that  one  be- 
ing excluded  and  left  behind.'  It  would  be  understood  as  amounting  only 
to  this — •  No  one  who  does  not  receive  this  mark  must  come  with  you  ;  for 
none  such  can  r>e  admitted  to  the  privileges  o?  subjects  ' — The  application 
of  this  to  circumcision  is  obvious.  When  all  the  members  of  a  man's  fam- 
ily are  required  to  be  circumcised,  on  the  head  of  the  family  pas-ing  into 
the  communion  of  Israel,  all  that  is  implied  appears  to  be,  that,  as  many  as 
passe  I  with  him  into  this  communion,  and  became  partakers  with  him  of  it^ 
privileges,  must  have  tins  mark  put  upon  them.'"' 

The  parallelism  of  this  illustrative  case  appears  from  the  very  reason  as- 
signed for  the  injunction — "  For  nn  unciratmased person  shall  eat  thereof/" 
If  the  declared  object  of  the  law  is  perfectly  attained,  without  the  monstrous 
supposition  adverted  to  in  the  text,  of  every  adult  member  of  a  household 
being  compelled,  upon  pain  of  death,  to  follow  the  faith  of  its  head,  are  we 
not  fairly  warranted  lo  conceive  the  supposition  erroneous  ?— "  In  the  sup- 
posed parallel  case,"  says  Mr.  Innes.  in  reply,  "  of  a  person  enjoying,  on 
certain  conditions,  the  privileges  of  a  particular  community,  there  is  one 
very  important  point  omitted,  viz.  that  it  was  an  essential  part  ol  the  law, 


SECTION    II.  by 

bear  in  mind,  is  simply  this — that  the  connection  of  chil- 
dren with  their  parents,  of  which  I  have  been  speaking, 
existed  of  old,  and  was  interwoven  with  all  the  thoughts, 
and  feelings,  and  practices  of  the  ancient  church.  It  had 
place  in  the  reception  of  proselytes.  It  pervaded  and 
characterized  the  entire  style  and  language  of  their  sa- 
cred books.  The  connection  of  this  observation  with 
our  argument  will  appear  immediately  when  we  have  re- 
marked, 

III.  In  the  third  place, — The  language  of  the  proph- 
ets, in  looking  forward  to  New  Testament  times,  appears 
to  assume,  or  even  to  affirm,  the  continuance  in  those 
times  of  the  same  connection  that  existed  of  old. 

Jeremiah,  speaking  of  the  blessedness  of  the  house  of 
Israel,  when  they  shall  turn  to  the  Lord  in  the  latter  days, 
says,  in  the  the  name  ol  Jehovah  : — "  I  will  gather  them 
out  of  all  countries  whither  I  have  driven  them  in  mine 
anger,  and  in  my  fury,  and  in  great  wrath  ;  and  I  will 
bring  them  again  unto  this  place,  and  I  will  cause  them 
to  dwell  safely  :  And  they  shall  be  my  people,  and  I  will 
be  their  God.  And  I  will  give  them  one  heart,  and  one 
way,  that  they  may  fear  me  for  ever,  for  the  good  of  them, 
and  of  their  children  after  them  :  And  I  will  make  an 
everlasting  covenant  with  them,   that  I  will  not  turn  away 

that  if  any  one  of  a  mairs  family  did  not  receive  the  mark  he  was  to  be 
cut  off,  i.  e,  lo  be  put  to  deaili.  The  case  al'eged  supposes,  that  it  was  an 
optional  thing  in  the  members  of  the  family  to  submit  to  the  prescribed  mark 
or  noi  ;  and  tha'  if  an)-  of  them  did  not,  they  might  leave  the  family,  while 
the  head  of  it  was  not  to  blame.  Now  this  is  a  case  totally  different  from 
the  institution  of  circumcision.  According  to  it,  a  man  was  deeply  crimi- 
nal it  he  had  not  all  Ins  miles  circumcised.  Such  as  were  n<>t  so,  were  not 
authorized  to  separate  from  h  m,  but  were  commanded  to  be  put  to  death." 
— I  need  not  say  much  in  answer  to  tins,  because  it  is  only  a  re-affirmation 
of  his  interpretation  of  the  l.iw.  Granting  that  being  ''  cut  off  from  his  peo- 
ple" means  b*-ing  put  to  death  ;  as  the  design  of  the  law  was  to  prevent 
any  nncircnmcised  person  from  partaking  of  the  pnssover  or  being  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Israelii ish  community,  which  was  the  church  of  (iod,  the  punish- 
ment 1  understand  lo  applv  lo  -ueh  as  should  presume,  without  circumcis- 
ion, to  intrude  themselves  into  th  ■  congregation  of  the  Lord.  This  is  evi- 
dent, from  the  nature  of  the  case  ;  from  the  original  law,  lhat  "  every  un- 
circumcised  manchild  should  be  cut  off  from  his  people," — which  manifest- 
ly signifies  every  manchild  found  in  connection  with  the  congregation  of  Is- 
rael,— the  very  phrase  '  from  his  people"  implying  this  ;  and  from  the  fact 
of  the  judgments  of  Go;l  being  denounced  against  Israel  by  lbs  prophets, 
for  having,  amongst  other  evils,  brought  strangers  uncircumclsed  in  heart 
and  uncircumcised  in  fle.sh:  to  be  in  his  sanctuary,  lo  pollute  it." 


70  section  ir. 

from  them,  to  do  them  good  ;  but  I  will  put  my  fear  in 
their  hearts,  that  they  shall  not  depart  from  me."* — I  can- 
not readily  imagine  any  consistent  interpolation  of  this 
passage,  if  it  does  not  contain  a  promise  ot  spiritual  bles- 
sing to  the  offspring  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  now 
in  a  state  of  dispersion,  and  likewise  to  their  children  af- 
ter them,  ic  their  generations  ;  or,  as  the  prophet  Ezekiel 
expresses  it  (chap,  xxxvii.  2o.)  "  to  their  children,  and  to 
their  children's  children,  for  ever."  And,  as  this  lan- 
guage respecting  t  le  Jews  is  used  in  prospect  of  their 
union  with  the  Gentiles  in  the  New  Testament  church, 
when  they  shall  acknowledge  Jesus  to  be  the  Christ  ;  it 
follows,  that  the  terms  employed  concerning  them  are  de- 
scriptive ot  the  state  and  privileges  of  all  the  subjects  of 
the  new  covenant,  Gentiles  as  well  as  Jews.  The  pas- 
sage, then,  as  referring  to  gospel  times,  seems  to  contain 
an  intimation,  that  the  same  connection  should  then  con- 
tinue between  the  people  of  God  and  their  offspring, 
which  had  existed  from  the  days  of  Abraham. 

The  prophet  Isaiah,  predicting  the  glory  of  the  church 
in  the  latter  days,  gives  the  following,  among  other  dec- 
larations, of  the  blessedness  of  God's  people  : — "  They 
shall  not  labor  in  vain,  nor  bring  forth  for  trouble  :  lor 
they  are  the  seed  of  the  blessed  of  the  Lord ,  and  their  off- 
spring with  the?/!."  Isa.  Jxv.  2#.  They  are  "  the  seed 
of  the  blessed  of  the  Lord,"  that  is,  as  I  apprehend,  the 
spiritual  seed  of  the  fathers,  Abraham,  Isaac,  aud  Jacob, 
who  were  peculiarly  the  blessed  of  the  Lord  ; — "  and 
their  offspring  with  them  ;"  that  is,  connected  with  them 
in  the  promise  of  the  covenant,  as  in  the  days  when  it 
was  made  with  these  blessed  of  the  Lord,  and  partaking 
with  them  of  his  blessing.  This  appears  to  be  assigned 
as  the  reason  of  their  "  not  bringing  forth  for  trouble," 
— the  blessing  of  the  Lord  resting  on  the  offspring  in  con- 
nection with  their  parents. 

In  replying  to  any  argument,  candor  always  requires, 
that  we  bear  in  remembrance  the  pn  cise  point  which  it 
is  intended  to  establish.  The  above  passages  are  adduc- 
ed, simply  to  show,  that  the  prophets,  in  anticipating  the 
spiritual  times  of  the  New  Testament  church,  employ  Ian- 
*  Jer.  xxxii.  37—  U). 


SECTION    II.  71 

guage  such  as  indicates  the  future  continuance  of  the  con- 
nection between  parents  and  children  which  formerly 
subsisted.  The  proper  way  of  answering  them,  there- 
fore, is,  to  show  that  they  do  not,  in  any  degree,  warrant 
or  countenance  such  an  inference.  I  say,  in  any  degree. 
It  is  not  enough  to  show  that  they  are  not,  in  themselves, 
and  apart  from  all  other  proof,  conclusive.  It  would  be 
a  very  foolish  way  of  disproving  the  strength  of  a  chain, 
to  take  up  any  particular  link,  and  show  that  it  was  not 
at  the  extremity,  and  had  not  an  immediate  connection 
with  the  final  point  of  fixture.  Each  link,  however  re- 
mote, has  a  connection  with  that  point,  as  real  and  as  ne- 
cessary, though  not  so  immediate,  as  the  last.  Each  in 
its  own  proper  place,  by  its  junction  with  that  which  pre- 
cedes and  that  which  follows  it,  contributes  to  the  continu- 
ity and  strength  of  the  chain.  And  so  does  each  argu- 
ment, in  a  series  of  proofs,  conduct  to  a  conclusion.  If 
each  bears  legitimately  its  own  proportion  of  inference, 
this  is  all  that  should  be  expected  from  it.  To  reply  to  it, 
by  showing  that  U  does  not  bear  more,  that  it  is  not  in  it- 
self conclusive  as  to  the  ultimate  point,  is  not  candid. 
Thus,  in  answer  to  the  above  passages,  it  has  been  said, 
"  We  want  direct  proof,  that  the  '  good'  promised  in  them 
to  the  people  of  God  and  'their  children  after  them,'  in- 
cludes their  baptism  while  infants."  This  is  banter,  not 
argument.  The  sole  question  should  be,  Do  the  passages 
give  any  countenance  to  the  inference,  that  the  connec- 
tion between  parents  and  children,  which  subsisted  from 
the  institution  of  the  covenant  with  Abraham,  and  char- 
acterized the  ancient  dispensations,  was  to  continue  under 
the  new?  If  the  negative  of  this  precise  point  is  not 
made  oui,  the  passages  are  not  fairly  met,  but  evaded. — 
It  has  been  further  said,  "  We  want  positive  proof  that 
their  children  mean  flair  infant  children."  But  this  too 
is  little  better  than  evasion.  There  can  be  no  question, 
that  in  the  promise  of  the  original  covenant,  "  I  will  be 
a  God  to  thee,  and  to  thy  seed  after  thee  in  their  gener- 
ations," infant  children  were  included  ;  for  the  token  of 
the  covenant  was  applied  to  thern  at  eight  days  old  : — this 
was  the  connection  between  parents  and  children  which 
existed  anciently,  and  which  was  familiar   to  the  Israel- 


72  SECTION    II. 

ites  ;  and  the  question  is,  as  before,  whether  the  above, 
and  other  similar  passages,  do  or  do  not  contain  any  in- 
timation that,  in  the  predicted  New  Testament  period  of 
the  church,  the  same  thing  was  to  continue. — I  am  satis- 
fied they  do, — the  attempt  to  explain  them  away  having 
confirmed  the  conviction. 

TV.  I  go  on  now  to  remark,  in  the  fourth  place,  that 
the  language  of  the  New  Testament  intimates  the  contin- 
uance ol  the  same  connection  ;  and  intimates  it  exactly 
in  such  a  way  as,  from  the  previous  state  of  things,  might 
have  naturally  been  expected. 

It  is  of  essential  importance,  in  interpreting  the  New 
Testament,  that  we  should  keep  in  mind  the  state  of 
things  preceding  it.  The  reason  is  obvious.  It  is  surely 
natural  to  expect,  that  its  language  should  be  affected  by 
these  existing  circumstances  ;  and  the  import  of  the  ex- 
pressions used  we  shall  be  unable,  in  many  instances, 
correctly  to  appreciate,  unless  we  take  into  our  view  a 
reference,  in  the  mind  of  the  writers,  to  what  already  ex* 
isted  and  was  familiarly  known,  and  the  existence  and 
familinr  knowledge  of  which  rendered  greater  enlarge- 
ment, and  minuteness,  and  precision,  unnecessary.  This 
is  a  principle  so  obvious,  and  its  influence  so  natural  and 
unavoidable,  that,  with  the  man  who  should  question  the 
the  admission  of  it  as  a  legitimate  cannon  of  interpreta- 
tion, I  should  consider  reasoning  as  thrown  away.  The 
strongest  consideration  alledged  against  it,  we  shall  have 
occasion  to  notice  by  and  by. 

I  have  before  observed,  how  the  burden  of  proof  lies  on 
the  side  of  the  opponents  of  infant  baptism.  They  seek 
a  precept  in  positive  terms — Let  the  infant  children  of 
proselytes  to  the  faith  of  the  gospel  be  baptized  with  their 
parents.  Bui  we  demand  a  precept  in  similar  positive 
terms — Let  the  children  of  proselytes  be  no  longer  admit- 
ted, as  formerly,  to  the  sign  and  seal  of  the  blessings  of 
the  covenant  of  God. — We  call  for  the  production  of  an 
express  declaration,  that  such  admission  is  inconsistent 
with  the  spirituality  of  the  new  dispensation.  But  no 
such  thing  is  ever  said  :  no  hint  of  such  a  thing  is  ever 
given.  So  far  from  it,  that  let  us  mark  in  general  terms, 
how  the   case  stands. — After   finding  the  connection  in 


SECTION  II.  85 

question  pervading  the  Old  Testament,  in  the  manner  we 
have  st  .ted  ; — the  children  of  the  professed  people  of 
God  circumcised  with  their  parents  ;  and  the  children  of 
Gentile  proselytes  to  the  faith  of  Abraham  introduced 
with  their  children,  by  the  same  rite,  to  the  privileges  of 
the  ancient  church  ; — we  then  come  forward  to  the  his- 
tory of  the  new  dispensation.  If  this  previous  state  of 
things  were  really  inconsistent  with  its  spiritual  nature, 
it  seems  not  unreasonable  to  expect  that  the  language  on 
this  point  should  be  plain  and  decisive.  But  what  is  the 
fact  ?  Instead  of  plain  and  decisive  intimations  of  this  in- 
consistency, and  of  the  necessary  discontinuance  of  the 
practice,  we  meet  with  language  in  perfect  accordance 
with  the  previous  state  of  things:  precisely  sucli  as  wri- 
ters whose  minds  were  habitu  »ted  to  it  would  naturally 
use,  and  such  as  readers  in  similar  circumstances  could 
not  understand  in  any  other  way  than  one. — "  They 
brought  young  children  to  him,  that  he  should  touch 
them;  and  his  disciples  rebuked  those  that  brought 
them.  But  when  Jesus  saw  it  he  was  much  displeased, 
and  said  unto  them,  Suffer  the  little  children  to  come 
unto  me,  and  forbid  them  not,  for  of  such  is  the  king- 
dom of  God.  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  Whosoever  shall 
not  receive  the  kingdom  of  God  as  a  little  child,  he 
shall  not  enter  therein.  And  he  took  them  up  in  hi* 
arms,  put  his  hands  upon  them,  and  blessed  them  :" — 
"Jesus  said  unto  him,  This  day  is  salvation  come  to  this 
house  :  forasmuch  as  he  also  is  a  son  of  Abraham  :" — 
"  Then  Peter  said  unto  them,  Repent,  and  be  baptized 
every  one  of  you,  for  the  remission  of  sins  ;  and  ye 
shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost: — for  the  prom- 
ise is  to  you,  and  to  your  children,  and  to  all  that  are  afar 
off,  e*en  as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God  shall  call :" — "  A 
certain  woman,  named  Lydia,  a  seller  of  purple,  of  the 
city  ofThyatira,  who  worshipped  God,  heard  us  : — whose 
heart  the  Lord  opened,  that  she  attended  to  those  things 
which  were  spoken  of  Paul.  And  when  she  was  bap- 
tized, and  her  household,  she  besought  us,"  &,c. — "  They 
said  unto  him,  Believe  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  thou 
shall  be  saved,  and  thy  house  :  and  they  spake  unto  hirn 
the  word  of  the  Lord,  and  to  all  that  were  in  his  house  :  — 
7 


CO  SECTION  II. 

and  he  was  baptized,  he  and  all  his,  straightway  :"— "  I 
baptized  alsothe  household  of  Stephanas  :" — "  The  unbe- 
lieving husband  is  sanctified  by  the  believing  wife,  and 
the  unbelieving  wife  is  sanctified  by  the  believing  hus- 
band , — else  were  your  children  unclean  ;  but  now  are 
they  holy."* — It  is  not  on  one  or  another  of  these  texts, 
taken  separately,  that  I  am  resting  my  argument  under 
this  particular.  It  is  on  the  intimation  which,  when  ta- 
ken together,  they  so  clearly  afford,  of  the  continuance 
of  the  same  state  of  things,  in  regard  to  families,  as  for- 
merly. I  profess  myself  unable  to  account  for  the  lan- 
guage, on  any  thing  like  easy  and  natural  principles  of 
interpretation,  unless  upon  this  hypothesis.  The  unnat- 
ural straining  which  is  employed,  to  get  rid  of  some  of 
the  passages,  we  shall  see  immediately. — But,  before 
leaving  this  particular,  I  must  take  notice  of  a  highly  in- 
genious, and,  at  first  view,  very. plausible  and  imposing 
light,  in  which  the  objection  has  been  placed  to  the  mode 
of  reasoning  in  general  from  the  previous  state  of  things, 
and  of  the  minds  of  the  Jews  in  reference  to  it.  "  By 
the  same  kind  of  reasoning,"  it  is  alleged,  "  it  might, 
with  equal  plausibility,  be  proved,  that  the  kingdom  of 
Christ  is  a  kingdom  of  tl  is  world.  It  might  be  argued, 
That  though  the  kingdom  of  ancient  Israel  was  a  worldly 
kingdom,  including  their  carnal  seed,  it  was  the  kingdom 
of  God  :  that  the  prophecies  relating  to  the  kingdom  of 
Messiah  frequently  represent  it  as  a  worldly  monarchy, 
like  the  kingdom  of  Israel  under  the  reigns  of  David  and 
Solomon  : — that  the  Jews  in  general  interpreted  these 
prophecies  of  a  worldly  kingdom  ;  their  minds  were  ha- 
bituated to  this  idea,  and  it  was  an  idea  deeply  rooted  in 
their  hearts:  They  must  therefore  have  understood  John 
the  baptist,  or  Christ  and  his  apostles,  when  preaching 
that  kingdom,  in  a  sense  consistent  with  their  previous 
views,  as  intimating  a  continuance  of  the  same  worldly 
kingdom  as  formerly,  but  now  to  be  restored  to  Israel, 
and  raised  to  a  higher  pitch  of  worldly  power  and  pros- 
perity than  ever."t 

*  Mark  x   13—16,  Luke  xix.  9.  Acts  ii.  39.  xvi.  14,  15  and  31,  33.  1  Cor. 
i.  16.     1  Cor.  vi..  14. 
t  Maclean's  Rev.  pp.  119,  120. 


SECTION   II. 


87 


Now,  ingenious  and  plausible  as  this  mode  of  put.ing 
the  question  may  seem,  it  is  more  than  fallacious.  1  am 
sincerely  obliged  to  the  writer  tor  it,  because  it  serves  to 
set  my  argument  in  a  still  clearer  liultt,  and  to  give  it  ad- 
ditional lorce  and  conclusiveness.  It  is  admitted  that  the 
minds  of  the  Jews  were  habituated  to  the  expectation  of 
a  worldly  kingdom,  and  that  the  idea  was  deeply  rooted 
in  their  hearts.  Let  the  passages,  then,  b-  pointed  out, 
in  which  John  the  baptist,  or  Christ  and  his  a postks,  act- 
ed or  spoke  in  a  manner  that  harmonized  with  this  ex- 
pectation, and  was  calculated  to  countenance  and  to 
cherish,  instead  of  unsettling  and  doing  it  away.  The 
cases  will  then  be  parallel.  But  it  is  very  far  otherwise. 
Instead  of  parallelism,  there  is  contrast.  The  whole 
conduct  and  discourse  of  our  Lord  are  framed,  as  if  for 
the  very  purpose  of  opposing  their  worldly  and  unscrip- 
turaJ  conceptions.  Every  thing  about  him  was  fitted  to 
put  such  conceptions  down,  and  to  thwart,  and  mortify, 
and  wither  the  hopes  arising  out  of  them,  liis  whole 
preaching  when  lie  proclaimed  that  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  was  at  hand,  was  pointedly  directed  against  the 
prevailing  ideas  ol  iis  nature.  The  very  first  sentence  of 
his  sermon  on  the  mount  was  enough  to  dissipate  them 
for  ever — "  Blessed  are  the  poor  in  spirit,  for  theirs  is  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  :"  and  the  whole  description  of  char- 
acter which  follows  has  the  same  tendency.  It  is  all 
spiritual,  opposed  to  every  worldly  principle,  to  every 
carnal  and  earthly  expectation. — Of  the  same  description 
in  his  first  address  to  INicodemus,  intimating  the  necessity 
of  a  spiritual  birth,  in  all  the  subjects  of  his  kingdom — 
"Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  thee,  except  a  man  be  born 
again,  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God." — And  how 
flatly  and  explicitly  does  he  contradict  what  he  knew  to 
be  the  views  and  hopes  of  the  Pharisees,  when  they  asked 
him  "  when  the  kingdom  of  God  should  come" — "  The 
kingdom  of  God,"  said  he,  "  cometh  not  with  outward 
show  :  neither  shall  they  say,  Lo  here,  or  Lo  there  ;  for 
behold  the  kingdom  of  God  is  within  you." — All  this  is 
in  harmony  too  with  the  "  good  confession"  which  he 
subsequently  witnessed  before  Pontius  Pilate,"  f  My 
kingdom   is  not  of  this  world." — In  fact  the  very  exist- 


5>S  SECTION   II. 

ence  of  these  false  preconceptions  makes  him  studious,  as 
it  were,  to  avoid  whatever  might  encourage  them,  and  to 
embrace  every  opportunity  of  exposing  and  warning  a- 
gainst  them.  This  is  what  might  have  been  expected. — 
And  I  have  only  to  request  the  candid  reader,  to  consider 
the  marked  difference  between  the  two  cases  ;  and  to 
put  the  question  to  his  own  mind,  whether,  if  the  continu- 
ance of  the  pre-existing  connection  between  children  and 
parents  had  been  inconsistent  with  the  spirituality  of  his 
kingdom,  lie,  who  showed  himself  so  jealous  of  that  spir- 
ituality, and  set  himself  so  decidedly  against  the  carnal 
views  and  expectations  of  his  deluded  countrymen,  would 
not  have  acted,  in  regard  to  it,  upon  the  same  principle, 
and  have  avoided  whatever  was  fitted  to  countenance  and 
confirm  erroneous  preconceptions? 

V.  Having  taken  this  general  view  of  the  passages,  let 
me  now  in  the  fifth  place,  request  the  reader's  attention 
to  two  or  three  of  them  separately. 

Acts  it.  38,  39.  "  Then  Peter  said,  Repent,  and  be 
baptized  every  one  of  you,  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ, 
for  the  remission  of  sins;  and  ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of 
the  Holy  Ghost.  For  the  promise  is  to  you,  and  to  your 
children,  and  to  ali  that  are  afar  off,  even  as  many  as  the 
Lord  our  God  shall  call." 

These  words  were  addressed  by  a  Jew  to  fellow  Jews. 
How  would  such  an  audience  understand  them?  When 
they  heard  of  a  promise  to  thtm  and  to  their  chi/Jreii, 
could  their  minds  fail,  on  such  an  occasion,  to  go  back  to 
the  promise  of  the  covenant  made  with  their  fathers,  and 
declared  t>»  be  to  them  and  to  their  seed  after  them? 
And  in  that  case,  there  was  but  one  sense  in  which  the 
hearers  of  Peter  could  understand  ihe  designation  "  your 
children."  Yet  it  is  on  the  ground  of  the  promise  made 
to  them  and  to  their  children,  that  the  apostle  founds  his 
assurance  of  "the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost  :"  and  this  gift 
another  apostle  (Paul)  denominates  "  the  blessing  of  A- 
braham," — or  declares  it  at  least  to  be  included  in  that 
blessing.  Gal.  iii.  14. — Recollect,  then,  that  the  minds 
of  Peter's  auditors  were  habituated  to  the  idea  of  the  con- 
nection of  their  children  with  themselves  in  the  promise 
of  the  covenant.     The  idea  was  deeply  and  familiarly  set- 


SECTION 


89 


tied  in  their  minds  and  hearts.  It  is  unreasonable,  then, 
to  say,  that  they  must  have  understood  Peter's  words, — 
the  words  of  Divine  promise  to  themselves  and  to  their 
children — addressed  to  them  by  an  inspired  prophet, — 
in  a  sense  consistent  with  that  which  they  were  accus- 
tomed to  affix  to  similar  modes  of  expression,  when  used 
of  old  to  their  fathers, — and  consistent  with  all  their  pre- 
vious habits  of  thought  ?  And  if  they  did  so  understand 
them,  they  must  have  conceived  of  them  as  assuming,  and 
intimating,  the  continuance  of  the  same  connection. — 
Are  we  then  to  suppose,  that  this  "holy  man  of  God, 
speaking  as  he  was  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost,"  would, 
without  explanation  or  restriction,  at  the  very  "  beginning 
of  the  gospel,"  in  his  first  address  to  his  countrymen, 
when  a  right  impression  was  of  so  much  consequence — 
employ  expressions,  that  were  fitted  to  convey  to  their 
minds  a  false  and  worldly  view  of  the  nature  of  the  Mes- 
siah's kingdom  ? 

Mark  x.  13 — 16.  "  And  they  brought  young  children 
to  him,  that  he  should  touch  them  ;  and  his  disciples  re- 
buked those  that  brought  them.  But  when  Jesus  saw  it, 
he  was  much  displeased,  and  said  unto  them,  Suffer  the 
little  children  to  come  unto  me,  and  forbid  them  not  : 
for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  God.  Verily  I  say  unto 
you,  Whosoever  shall  not  receive  the  kingdom  of  God  as 
a  little  child,  he  shall  not  enter  therein.  And  he  took 
them  up  in  his  arms,  put  his  hands  upon  them,  and  bless- 
ed them." 

"  The  kingdom  of  heaven"  is  the  New  Testament 
church, — the  spiritual  kingdom  of  Christ,  begun  on  earth, 
and  perfected  in  heaven, — the  gospel  dispensation,  in- 
cluding both  its  state  in  this  world,  and  its  state  in  the 
world  to  come.  This  comprehensive  view  of  the  designa- 
tion readily  accounts  for  its  being  sometimes  applied  to 
the  church  below,  and  at  other  times  to  heaven  itself.  It 
is  the  same  kingdom,  in  the  two  great  stages  of  its  pro- 
gress.— Of  this  kingdom,  young  children  (Pgtyot,  infants) 
are  here  most  explicitly  declared  to  be  subjects — partak- 
ers of  its  piivileges  and  blessings. — If  (as  some  allege) 
the  phrase  "  of  such"  means  of  persons  possessing  the  dis- 
positions of  children,  it  means  this,  beyond  all  question, 
*7 


yU  SECTION   II. 

inclusively  of  the  children  themselves.  If  not,  the  reasons 
for  receiving  them  would  have  been  as  applicable  to 
lambs,  or  doves,  as  to  children  : — besides,  that  the  words 
which  follow  ascertain  their  being  included, — "Whoso- 
ever shall  not  receive  the  kingdom  of  God  as  a  little  child, 
(i.  e.  surely  as  a  little  child  receives  it,)  he  shall  in  no 
case  enter  therein." — The  Sovereign  ot  this  kingdom, 
then,  distinctly  recognise*  little  childien  amongst  his  sub- 
jects ;  and  he  is  "much  displeased"  with  those  who 
would  have  prevented  their  being  brought  to  him  tor  his 
blessing.  Recollect,  then>  reader,  the  previous  state  of 
things  ;  and  let  me  ask  you,  is  this  at  all  like  the  lan- 
guage of  exclusion  ?  Is  ii  not,  on  the  contrary,  language, 
which  teaches  us,  that  such  little  children  are  capable  of 
possessing  the  blessings  of  his  kingdom,  and  that  a  large 
proportion  of  those  who  shall  glorify  and  enjoy  him  in 
heaven  consists  of  such  ? — Am  I  then  to  believe,  that 
whilst  Jesus  makes  this  interesting  declaration,  pronoun- 
cing them  objects  of  his  tender  love,  subjects  of  his  spir- 
itual kingdom,  and  partakers  of  its  blessings,  he,  at  the 
same  time,  cuts  off  all  such  from  any  external  sign  of 
connection  with  the  kingdom  he  was  establishing  ? — that 
he  declares  them  partakers  of  the  blessings  of  the  prom- 
ise, and  yet  forbids  the  outward  token  of  such  participa- 
tion to  be  any  longer  administered  to  them? — that  he  re- 
ceives them,  with  the  melting  eye  of  benignity  and  kind- 
ness, and  acknowledges  their  intimate  connection  with 
him,  and  yet  excludes  them  from  every  external  indica- 
tion of  such  connection,  leaving  them  no  mark  or  token 
of  the  love  he  so  emphatically  expresses  for  them  ? — I 
must  have  proof  of  this,  more  explicit  and  satisfactory 
than  any  I  have  yet  seen,  before  I  can  believe  it.  The 
words  of  Christ  appear  to  me  very  plainly  to  warrant  the 
inference,  or  even  to  involve  a  declaration,  that,  as  the 
great  promise  of  the  covenant  made  with  the  fathers  was 
now  receiving  its  accomplishment,  it  was  still  to  include, 
according  to  its  original  constitution,  the  people  of  God 
and  their  seed.  The  persons  by  whom  these  children 
were  brought  to  Jesus,  professed,  in  the  very  act  of  bring- 
ing them,  their  faith  in  him,  and  the  value  they  set  on  his 
blessing. 


SECTION  II.  91 

If  it  shall  be  objected,  that  salvation  is  not  confined  to 
the  seed  of  believers, — 1  gladly  admit  the  fact.  1  delight 
in  the  conviction  of  the  salvation  of  all  that  die  in  infan- 
cy, though  it  would  be  foreign  to  my  purpose  to  enlarge 
here  on  the  grounds  of  this  conviction.  Let  one  obser- 
vation suffice.  I  see  God  actually  taking  of  the  offspring 
of  ungodly  men,  and  calling  them  by  his  grace,  in  their 
adult  years ;  and,  resting  on  this  matter  of  fact,  I  can  see 
nothing  to  hinder  his  taking  also,  as  the  objects  of  his 
sovereign  mercy,  such  of  their  offspring  as  die  in  infancy. 
I  am  not,  however,  to  forget,  that  God's  sovereign  deal- 
ing in  the  case  of  others,  is  not  to  be  considered  as  inter- 
ferring  with  his  special  promises  to  his  people;  and  that 
the  administration  of  ordinances  must  run  in  the  line  of 
the  Divine  promise  and  prescription.  We  have  no  title, 
whatever  God's  sovereignty  may  do,  to  go  beyond  or  out 
of  the  course  of  these.  The  appropriation  of  the  promise 
and  seal  of  the  covenant  to  the  line  of  descent  from  Abra- 
ham by  Isaac,  was  not  such  as  to  preclude  the  gracious 
admission  of  proselytes  from  among  the  Gentiles.* 

*  The  following' contrast  between  the  baptist  and  paedobaptist  systems, 
in  regard  to  the  state  and  prospects  of  dying  infants,  is  from  the  S'rictures  of 
Mr.  Birt.on  Mr.  H.  F.  Murder's  Sermon.  It  evinces  a  degree  of  unfairness 
towards  many  at  least  of  his  paedobaptist  brethren,  which  I  should  not  have 
expected  from  such  a  quarter.  .Surely  Mr.  B.  knew,  or  ought  to  have 
known,  that  many  of  ihem  held  the  same  sentiments  with  himself  as  to  the 
salvation  of  all  who  die  in  infancy,  and  were  sensible  of  no  inconsistency 
between  these  sentiments  and  their  principles  and  practice  as  paedobaptists. 
He  should,  therefore,  have  been  ashamed  to  write  in  terms  so  unqualified 
as  the  following,  however  strongly  he  might  be  templed  to  hold  up  to  exe- 
cration the  narrow-minded  exclusiveness  of  the  system  of  his  opponents  : — 
"The  baptists,  wilh  grateful  confidence,  esteem  all  children  who  die  in  in- 
fancy to  be  equally  and  certainly  saved,  without  any  distinction  5  whilst 
paedobaptism.  wilh  ^.yartiil,  gloomy,  and  awful  aspect,  makes  a  privileged 
order  among  dying  babes — placing  a  comparatively  small  number  in  a  state 
of  regeneration,  and  a  very  few  others  in  the  covenant  of  grace  5  leaving 
the  vast  and  incalculable  majority  destitute  of  those  blessings,  which  are 
essentially  necessary  to  their  future  and"*eernal  felicity.  Who  thai  im- 
partially considers  this  subject,  can  avoid  being  thankful,  that  the  Bible 
does  not  lead  him  to  so  awful  a  conclusion,  and  that  he  is  not  by  divine  au- 
thority connected  wilh  a  practice,  the  implications  of  which  an-  so  truly  ap- 
palling?"— 1  unite,  with  my  whole  heart,  in  the  thankfulness  thus  fervently 
expressed,  that  "  the  Bible  does  not  lead  me  to  so  awful  a  conclusion." — 
But  it  is  not  the  man  who  has  'impartially,  it  is  the  man  who  has  very  par- 
tially indeed,  considered  the  subject,  that  can  represent  paedobaptism  as 
involving  any  such  appalling  implications. 

%•  As  the  subject  of  ihis  note  is  one  of  very  deep  interest,  I  shrill  be  ex- 
cused for  referring  the  reader,  for  some  additional  observations  respecting 


92 


SECTION  II. 


Luke  xix.  9.  "  Jesus  said  unto  him,  This  day  is  Sal- 
vation come  to  this  house,  ibr-so-much  as  he  also  is 
a  son  of  Abraham  :" — Acts  xvi.  J5.  "  When  she  was 
baptized,  and  her  household :" — Acts  xvi.  31,  3:$.  "  Be- 
lieve in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  thou  shalt  be  saved, 
and  thy  house:" — "He  was  baptized,  he  and  all  his, 
straightway  :" — 1  Cor.  i.  16.  "  1  baptized  also  the  house- 
hold of  Stephanas." 

These  passages  relating  to  families,  I  take  of  course 
together.  The  general  argument  from  them,  arising 
from  the  continuance  of  a  phraseology  corresponding  to 
the  previous  state  of  things,  I  have  consideied  under  the 
preceding  particular.  As  to  that  view  of  the  argument, 
I  feel  no  anxiety  about  the  question,  whether  thete  were 
infant  children  in  those  families  or  not.  As  the  passages, 
however,  have  been  the  occasion  of  no  small  controversy, 
a  few  additional  observations  are  indispensable. 

In  the  first  place,  then,  there  is  one  point  of  fact  unde- 
niably clear,  namely,  that  the  apostles  baptized  households, 
or  families.  As  to  this  there  can  be  no  question. — It 
should  be  noticed,  too,  that  a  man's  house  (otxog)  most 
properly  means  his  children,  his  offspring,  his  descend- 
ants,— and  is  generally  used  to  denote  these  even  exclu- 
sively. I  refer  the  reader  to  the  following  instances,, 
which  he  may  consult.  Ruth  iv.  12.  1  Kings  xiv.  10 — 
14.  xvi.  3.  xxi.  22.      I  Tim.  iii.  4,  &.c. 

Secondly  :  To  an  unprejudiced  reader  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament, it  must,  I  think,  be  equally  clear,  that  the  bap- 
tism of  families  is  mentioned  in  a  way  that  indicates  its 
being  no  extraordinary  occurrence, — but  a  thing  of 
course.  This  is  remarkably  the  case  as  to  Lydia.  "  The 
Lord  opened  her  heart,  that  she  attended  to  the  things 
which  were  spoken  by  Paul.  "  And  when  she  was  bap- 
tized and.  her  family,  she  besought  us,  saying,  If  ye  have 

it,  to  my  Reply  to  a  letter  by  the  Rev  John  Pirt  of  Manchester,  on  some 
passages  in  this  Dissertation  ;  in  the  first  Edition  of  which  T  had,  by  an  in- 
advertency, about  which  a  great  deal  more  ado  was  made  than  its  import- 
ance justified,  put  the  son  for  the  faiher,  having-  written  under  the  impres- 
sion that  the  Rev.  John  Bin  of  Manchester  was  the  writer  of  the  Strictures 
on  Mr.  Murder's  Sermon,  whereas  the  tiue  author  was  the  Rev.  Tsaiah  Birl, 
of  Birmingham.  The  part  of  my  reply,  which  relates  to  the  subject  of  the- 
above  note,  will  be  found  in  the  introductory  observations,  to  which  I-  agafa 
request  the  reader's  attention. 


SECTION   II.  93 

judged  me  to  be  faithful  to  the  Lord,  come  into  my  house 
and  abide  there."  I  cannot  but  consider  any  person  un- 
reasonable, who  will  not  admit,  that  the  mode  of  expres- 
sion here  is  one  which  would  naturally  be  used  respect- 
ing a  thing  that  was  customary.  And  it  is  worthy  of  no- 
tice, moreover,  that  the  baptism  of  her  family  is  immedi- 
ately connected  in  the  record  with  her  own  reception  of 
truth  ;  and  that  upon  her  own  faithfulness  to  the  Lord  she 
founds  her  plea  for  their  coming  under  her  roo!. — Simi- 
lar remarks  might  be  made  as  to  the  case  of  the  Philippi- 
an  jailor,  whe  "  was  baptized,  he  and  all  his  straightway." 
Thirdly : — Having  ihus  the  unquestionable  fact  of  the 
baptism  of  families, — a  fact  according  with  the  ancient 
practice  of  the  circumcision  of  families — and  supported 
by  the  use  of  a  word  that  properly  detrotes  a  man's  chil- 
dren or  offspring, — we  are  warranted  to  assume,  that  such 
was  the  usual  practice,  unless  our  baptist  brethren  can 
show,  that  the  cases  of  Lydia,  the  jailor,  and  Stephanas, 
were  in  the  circumstances  of  them  extraordinary,  and 
therefore  not  fair  specimens  of  what  was  customary. — 
Here  is  the  turning  point  on  this  part  of  the  argument. 
If  they  cannot  make  out  this, — or  if  they  cannot  make  it 
out  without  unnatural  straining  and  inadmissible  suppo- 
sitions, our  ground  is  firm. 

Let  us  then,  in  the,  fourth  place,  examine  a  little  the 
principles  on  which  they  endeavor  to  set  aside  the  in- 
ference  from  the  examples  in  question — "  We  really," 
they  allege,  "cannot  help  its  appearing  unnatural,  to  sup- 
pose that  there  were  no  little  children  in  those  families; 
we  have  to  do  only  with  the  fact  ;  and  in  each  of  the  ca- 
ses, we  have  clear  evidence  that  there  were  none." — 
What  then  is  this  evidence  ? 

First,  it  has  been  said,  there  were  no  children  in  the 
family  of  Lydia  ;  for  when  Paul  and  Silas  were  released 
from  their  imprisonment,  "they  entered  into  the  house 
of  Lvdia;  and  when  they  had  seen  the  brethren,  they 
comforted  them,  and  departed."  We  are  here  informed, 
it  is  alleged,  that  the  family  of  Lydia  were  "  brethren," 
who  were  capable  of  being  "comforted"  by  Paul  and  Si- 
las at  their  departure.  Now,  let  the  reader  observe  the 
wonderfully  slender  ground  on  which  this  argument  rests. 


94 


SECTION  II. 


It  is  simply  this,  "They  saw  these  brethren  in  the  house  of 
Lydia, — therefore  they  were  Lydia's  family — and  Lydia's 
family  only  !"  Surely,  compared  with  this,  "  t he  spider's 
most  attenuated  thread,  is  rope,  is  eanle."  The  reader, 
to  he  sure,  must  he  quite  aware,  how  preposterously  ab- 
surd it  is  to  suppose,  that  any  person  should  ever  come 
into  a  m  in's  house,  except  the  members  of  his  own  fami- 
ly !  and  especially  when  a  common  friend  is  there,  about 
to  take  a  last  farewell,  whom  none  ot  course  could  have 
any  wish  to  see!  Seriously,  is  it  inconceivable  that  the 
converts  at  Philippi  should  have  met  in  the  house  of 
Lydia  ?  It  is  ver)  improbable,  that  they  should  have  been 
there  at  a  season  so  interesting, — waiting  the  result,  and 
engaged  in  prayer  for  the  suffering  preachers  of  the  word,, 
like  those  who  met  for  tins  exercise,  in  the  house  of  John 
Mark,  on  behalf  of  Peter  ? — or  that  they  should  have  con- 
vened there  for  the  purpose  of  taking  farewell  of  Paul 
and  Silas? — Let  the  reader  further  observe,  what  an  im- 
probable and  heartless  supposition  is  involved  in  this  ar- 
gument ; — a  supposition  which  no  one  surely  would  wil- 
lingly admit,  unless  necessitated  by  an  expiess  declara- 
tion : — namely,  that  Lydia  and  her  family  were  the  only 
converts,  except  the  jailor  and  his,  made  during  Paul's 
stay  at  Philippi.  But  this  is  not  only  contrary  to  all 
probability;  it  is  opposed  to  obvious  fact.  The  history  is 
very  brief;  and  the  particular  incidents  selected  for  de- 
tail are  only  a  few  out  of  many,  distinguished  by  the  pe- 
culiarity of  their  circumstances  or  consequences.  Some- 
times nothing  is  recorded  at  all,  but  the  fact  of  the  preach- 
ers having  visited  the  countries,  although  we  afterwards 
learn,  incidentally,  that  they  had  met  with  much  success. 
Thus  in  Acts  xviii.  23.  we  are  informed,  that  Paul  "  went 
over  the  countries  of  Galatia  and  Phrvgia  in  order, 
strrno-theninar  all  the  disriufrs  :"  yet  all  that  is  said  of 
these  countries  before,  is,  "  When  they  had  gone  through- 
out Phrygia  and  the  legion  of  Galatia."  Acts  xvi.  6. — 
Are  we  then  to  suppose,  that  Paul  and  his  associates  re- 
mained at  Philippi  "  many  days"  (verses  12.  IS.)  at  a 
time,  too,  when  God  was  so  remarkably  blessing  the  la- 
bors of  his  servants,  "  always,"  as  the  apostle  himself 
expresses  it,  "  causing  them   to  triumph  in  Christ,  aud 


SECTION  II.  95 

making  manifest  the  savor  of  his  knowledge  by  them  in 
every  place  ;"  and  that  the  entire  product  of  their  preach- 
ing lor  that  time  in  the  chief  city  of  Macedonia,  was  one 
family  ? — for  the  jailor's  was  at  the  close  of  their  .stay, 
and  arose  from  very  peculiar  circumstances.  I  refrain 
from  saving  what  I  think,  of  the  argument  that  requires 
such  a  supposition  to  support  it. — But  still  further.  From 
the  manner  in  which  the  apostles  writes  to  the  church  at 
Philippi,  it  appears  evidently  to  have  been,  from  the  first, 
a  numerous  and  flourishing  one.  Let  the  reader  consult 
the  following  passages  of  that  epistle — chap.  i.  4 — 7.  i. 
30.  ii.  i%  iv.  3.  iv.  15,  16. — or,  if  he  please,  peruse  the 
whole  ;  and  draw  the  inference  for  himself,  whether  the 
apostle  had  seen  no  more  fruit  of  his  labors,  when  there, 
than  the  members  of  two  families! 

Equally  futile  are  the  proofs  adduced,  that  there  were 
no  infant  children  in  the  households  of  the  jailor,  and  of 
Stephanas  : — namely,  that  respecting  the  former  it  is 
said,  Paul  "  spoke  the  word  of  the  Lord  to  all  that  were 
in  his  house," — which  supposes  them  all  capable  of  under- 
standing and  receiving  what  he  spoke  : — and  respecting 
the  latter,  that  they  "  addicted  themselves  to  the  minis- 
try of  the  saints."  1  Cor.  xvi.  15.,  which  shows  them  to 
have  been  all  capable  of  feeling  and  practising  Christian 
benevolence.  The  simple  answer  to  this  is,  that  such 
general  expressions  are  perfectly  common,  both  in  con- 
versation and  in  writing.  When  we  ascribe  to  a  family 
any  thing  of  which  infants  are  universally  understood  to 
be  incapable,  we  never  think  of  making  a  formal  excep- 
tion of  them.  I  should  reckon  the  man  foolish,  who 
should  conclude  from  my  saying,  "  I  spoke  to  the  whole 
family, — to  all  in  the  house," — or  "  They  area  very  benev- 
olent family  ;  they  lay  themselves  out  for  doing  good," — 
that  I  was  certainly  speakingofa  family  in  which  there  were 
no  infant  children.  When  Joshua  says,  "As  for  me  and 
my  house,  we  will  serve  the  Lord"  does  any  one  ever 
think  of  inferring,  that  his  family  could  not  contain  any 
infants,  because  infants  were  incapable  of  serving  the 
Lord?  Yet  the  inference  would  be  as  legitimate  in  this 
case,  as  in  either  of  the  others:  and  it  may  not  be  amiss 
for  our  baptist  brethren,  to  make  it  the  subject  of  a  little 


9G  SECTION  II. 

self-examination,  by  what  principle  is  it  that  they  are  led 
to  such  a  conclusion  in  the  one  case,  when  they  never 
think  of  it  in  the  other?  what  is  the  precise  difl'eience  in 
the  state  of  their  minds,  when  they  read  the  loth  verse 
of  the  twenty-fourth  chapter  of  Joshua,  and  w-bi*u  they 
read  the  34th  verse  of  the  sixteenth  chapter  of  the  Acts, 
or  the  16th  verse  of  the  sixteenth  chapter  ot  the  first  epis- 
tle to  the  Corinthians? — 

Let  us  only  consider  for  a  moment,  into  what  ridicu- 
lous absurdities  we  should  be  be  led,  by  the  general  a- 
doption  of  such  a  principle  of  criticism. — Tin;  children 
of  Israel  weie  commanded,  in  preparing  the  p.issover,  to 
"take  a  lamb  for  a  house,  according  to  the  "  number  of 
the  souls."  Are  we  to  infer  from  this,  that  they  number- 
ed the  mouths  of  sucking  infants? — or  that  there  were  no 
such  infants  at  that  time  in  the  families  of  Israel  ? — They 
were  enjoined  to  eat  it,  "  with  their  loins  girt,  and  their 
shoes  on  their  feet,  and  their  staff  in  their  hand.''  Chil- 
dren could  not  do  this  ;  therefore  we  conclude  again  that 
there  were  none  ; — and  the  conclusion  is  irresistibly  con- 
firmed, by  the  testimony  of  the  Psalmist  respecting  the 
passage  through  the  Red  Sea, — for  they  went  through  the 
flood,  he  says,  "  on  foot ;"  which  infants  certainly  were  in- 
capable of  doing.  When  the  paralytic  Eneas  was  cuted  by 
Peter,  it  is  said,  "  all  that  dwelt  in  Lydda  and  Saron  saw 
him,  and  turned  to  the  Lord  ;" — from  which,  amongst  other 
inferences,  it  will  follow,  that  these  places  presented  the 
singular  anomaly,  of  a  population  without  infants! — Paul 
writes  to  the  Thessalonians,  that  "  if  any  would  not  work, 
neither,  should  he  eat :" — were  the  babes  of  Thessalonica, 
then  to  be  left  to  starve,  because  they  were  incapable  of 
earning,  or  of  being  willing  to  earn,  their  daily  bread  1 — 
Let  no  baptist  say  indignantly,  "This  is  ridiculous, — it  is 
making  a  joke  of  the  matter."  Let  him  recollect,  that 
the  materials  of  the  joke  are  furnished  by  his  own  friends. 
Let  the  argument  (if  it  must  have  a  name  to  which  it  has 
no  title)  he  withdrawn,  and  there  will  be  no  room  left 
for  the  juke.  I  am  only  ashamed  indeed  of  beinij  obliged 
to  treat  it  so  seriously.     It  is  not  worth  the  ammunition. 

VI.   I  add,  as  a  sixth  general  observation,  the  extreme 
improbability,  that  a  change,  which   must  have  been  felt 


SECTION  II.  97 

so  important  by  those  whose  minds  had  been  all  along 
habituated  to  the  connection  of  their  children  with  them- 
selves in  the  covenant  of  promise,  should  have  taken 
place,  without  the  slightest  recorded  symptom  of  opposi- 
tion or  demurring. 

We  know  the  strength  of  attachment  to  ancient  institu- 
tions, feLt   and   manifested  by  the  Jewish  converts   to  the 
faith  of  the  gospel, — their  extreme  reluctance  to  part  even 
with  those   observances  which    belonged   exclusively    to 
that  system  of  shadows,  of  which  the  body  was  Chri>t. — 
They  were  still    "  zealous  for  the  law  ;"    and  they  show- 
ed their  zeal  by  their   indignation  at  Paul,  for  having,  as 
they    had    been   informed,  taught    their  countrymen  that 
they  should   not  "  circumcise  their  children,  neither  walk 
after   the   customs."      Is   it   likely,  then,   nay  is  it  at  all 
conceivable,  on  the  supposition  of  the  new  system  entirely 
excluding  children    from    its  appropriate  rites,  that  not  a 
hint  should  appear  of  anyone  having  been  startled  by  the 
change, — that  not  a  system  should   have  discovered  itself 
of  any   disposition  to  object  or  complain? — Nay    more — 
that  none  of  the  bitter  adversaries  of  the  Christian  scheme 
should  ever  have  cavilled  at  this,  or  founded  upon  it  any 
part  of  their   disputatious  opposition  ! — That   to  Jewish 
eyes   it  must  have  appeared  an  innovation  of  no  trifling, 
magnitude,  will  not  be  questioned  by  any  one,  who   duly 
considers  how  strongly  the   connection,  supposed  to  be 
disannulled,  was  sanctioned  in  their  minds,  by  the  sacred 
provisions  of  God's  covenant  with  their  venerated  fathers, 
Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob  ; — how  firmly  it  was  settled  in 
their   practice,  not  only  by  the   regular   circumcision   of 
their  own  offspring,  but  also  by  the  admission  of  Gentiies 
by  families  into  the  communion  of  Israel  ;    and   how  in- 
timately it  was  incorporated  with  all  their   most   favorite 
and   cherished   conceptions. — Considering  therefore,  the 
attachment  of  the  believing  Jews  to  ancient  practices  on 
the  one    hand,   and  the   eagerness  of  their   unbelieving 
countrymen,  on   the  other,  to  avail  themselves  of  every 
possible  ground  of  objection, — the  circumstance  of  no  op- 
position having  been  made  to  such  a  change,  and  no  ap- 
peal  rested   upon   it  against   the  Christian  doctrine,  and 
the  claims  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  when  it  might  have  been 
8 


98  SECTION  II. 

done  with  so  much  plausibility  and  effect, — is  in  my 
mind  a  proof,  of  no  inconsiderable  weight,  that  no  such 
change  had  actually  been  introduced. 

VII.  Another  remarkable  circumstance,  akin  to  the 
preceding,  is, — that  when  the  judaizing  teachers  insisted 
on  the  Gentile  converts  submitting  to  circumcision, — al- 
though there  can  be  no  doubt  that  this  \vasdone,jn  every 
case,  in  connection  with  their  children ; — yet,  when  the 
doctrine  and  practice  of  these  perverters  of  the  gospel 
came  to  be  discussed  in  the  assembly  of  the  apostles  and 
elders  and  brethren  at  Jerusalem,  no  notice  whatsoever  is 
taken  of  the  inconsistency  with  the  spirituality  of  the  new 
dispensation,  of  administering  any  sign  to  children,  on 
the  admission  of  their  parents  into  the  Christian  common- 
wealth,— or  of  treating  them  as  if  they  continued  to  have 
any  connection  at  all  with  their  parents,  in  reference  to 
the  blessings  of  the  covenant,  or  of  the  church  of  God. — 
Now,  surely,  if  such  connection  really  was  inconsistent 
with  the  spirituality  of  the  gospel  and  the  New  Testa- 
ment church,  it  must  have  been  an  error  of  no  trifling 
moment ;  and  it  is  reasonable  to  conclude,  that,  upon  an 
occasion  which  brought  the  subject  so  immediately  and 
formally  under  notice,  some  disapproval  should  have  been 
intimated  and  recorded,  of  the  error  itself,  and  the  prac- 
tice founded  upon  it :  and  the  absence  of  all  such  intima- 
tion is  a  collateral  evidence,  that  there  was  no  such  in- 
consistency, and  that  children  were  to  be  held,  and  treat- 
ed, as  sustaining  the  same  covenant  relation  to  their  pa- 
rents as  formerly. — I  hope  I  am  clearly  understood. — 
When  these  judaizing  teachers  insisted  on  the  circum- 
cision of  Gentile  proselytes  to  the  faith  and  profession  of 
the  gospel,  they  doubtless  administered  the  rite  according 
to  the  instituted  and  universal  practice, — the  children  be- 
ing circumcised  with  the  parent.  But  if  this  covenant 
relation  of  parent  and  child  had,  under  the  gospel,  been 
abolished,  as  being  inconsistent  with  its  spiritual  nature, 
it  is  Inrdly  conceivable,  that,  on  such  an  occasion,  on  so 
natural  and  fair  an  opportunity,  no  notice  whatever  should 
be  taken  of  such  abolition,  and  of  such  inconsistency. 
This,  1  say,  forms  an    additional  corroborative  indication 


SECTION  II.  99 

of  the  continuance  in   this  respect,  of  the  former  state  of 
things. 

VIII.  Let  it  be  further  considered,  that  we  have  no 
recorded  instance  of  the  baptism  of  any  person,  grown  to 
manhood,  that  had  been  born  of  Jewish  converts,  or  of 
Gentile  proselytes  to  the  faith  of  Christ ; — nor  have  we,  in 
any  of  the  apostolic  epistles  to  the  churches,  the  remotest 
allusion,  in  the  form  of  direction,  or  of  warning,  to  the 
reception  of  such  children  by  baptism  into  the  Christian 
church,  upon  their  professing  the  faith  in  which  they  had 
been  brought  up. 

To  every  mind  that  duly  considers  the  case,  this  must 
appear  a  very  remarkable  circumstance.  The  class  of 
individuals  alluded  to  must  have  been  a  very  numerous 
one  indeed,  and  one  too,  exceedingly  important  and  in- 
teresting. But  although,  in  the  epistles  to  the  churches, 
instructions,  various  and  minute,  are  given,  on  points  con- 
nected with  their  order,  and  purity,  and  increase,  on  some 
of  which  inquiries  had  been  made  by  them  at  the  apos- 
tles, ue  have  nothing,  in  any  shape  whatever,  on  this 
subject. 

"I  have  heard  it  alleged,"  says  Mr.  Walker,*  "that 
this  is  drawing  an  inference  from  the  silence  of  scripture, 
which  that  silence  does  not  warrant.  But  the  objection 
is  made  by  those  who  do  not,  or  will  not,  understand  the  ar- 
gument. I  do  not  argue  from  the  mere  silence,  of  the 
Scriptures,  that  the  t  hi  rig  about  which  they  are  silent,  was, 
or  was  not.  But  this  I  say,  that  so  far  as  it  is  probable,  from 
the  nature  of  any  thing,  that  if  it  were  so  or  so,  the  scrip- 
tures would  be  silent  about  it,  so  far  is  their  silence  about 
it  a  probable  argument  that  it  was  not  so.  Now,  it  ap- 
pears to  me,  that  baptism,  upon  the  baptist  principles,  is 
such  a  thing;  and  from  the  silence  of  scripture  on  the  sub- 
ject, I  cannot  but  see  a  confirmed  probability  that  these 
principles  are  false. — And  it  is  vain  to  say,  that  what  the 
scriptures  relate  of  the  baptism  of  adult  believers  is  suffi- 
cient, and  shows  that  there  is  not  that  silence  of  which  I 
speak.  For  every  instance  of  adult  baptism  recorded  in 
the  Bible  is  an  instance — not  of  the  baptism  of  one  brought 
up  from  childhood  in  the  profession  of  Christianity — but  of 
one  who  had  never  before  professed  Christianity.  So 
*  Thoughts  on  Baptism,  &c. 


100  SECTION  II. 

that  there  is  that  absolute  silence  on  the  subject  which  I 
have  asserted — so  far  as  the  baptist  principles  are  con- 
cerned in  it." 

Our  baptist  brethren  present  us,  in  support  of  their 
system,  with  instances  of  the  baptism  of  adults.  They 
would  do  something  more  to  their  purpose,  if  they  could 
produce  one  or  two  examples  of  the  baptism  of  suck  adults 
as  those  mentioned.  These  would  be  in  point.  But 
nothing  of  the  kind  is  to  be  found  ; — nothing  in  the  form 
either  of  fact,  or  allusion,  or  advice,  or  precept.  And 
the  simplest  explanation,  and  one  in  every  respect  suffi- 
cient and  satisfactory,  of  the  total  absence  of  every  thing 
of  the  sort,  is  the  supposition  of  what  so  many  other  proofs 
concur  to  establish, — that  the  children  of  the  converts 
who  composed  the  churches  had  been  baptized  with  their 
parents,  on  these  parents  entering  as  disciples  into  the 
fellowship  of  the  New  Testament  church. 

JX.  This  supposition,  let  it  be  further  noticed,  is  in 
coincidence  with  the  fact,  of  children  being  addressed  in 
the  apostolic  epistle  to  the  churches  of  Christ.  Thus  in 
Ephes.  vi.  1.  "Children,  obey  your  parents  in  the  Lord, 
for  this  is  right."  Col.  iii.  20.  "  Children,  obey  your  pa- 
rents in  all  things  ;   for  this  is  well-pleasing  unto  the  Lord." 

That  such  preceptive  intimations  of  the  Lord's  will  are 
not  to  be  understood  as  addressed  merely  to  those  adult 
members  of  families,  who  were  at  the  same  time  mem- 
bers of  churches,  but  as  including  children  from  their 
earliest  capability  of  instruction  and  admonition,  should 
be  admitted  by  every  candid  mind  that  considers  their 
connection  with  the  injunctions,  which  immediately  fol- 
low, to  parents  : — "  And  ye  fathers,  provoke  not  your  chil- 
dren to  wrath  ;  but  bring  them  up  in  the  nurture  and  ad- 
monition of  the  Lord." — "  Fathers,  provoke  not  your  chil- 
dren to  anger,  lest  they  be  discouraged."  The  duties  of 
parents,  in  the  bringing  up  of  their  children  in  the  nur- 
ture and  admonition  of  the  Lord,  commence  with  the  first 
dawn  of  reason,  and  must  keep  pace  with  the  gradual 
opening  of  the  mind  ; — and  it  is  a  part  of  this  duty,  to 
point  out  to  their  children,  as  early  as  they  are  capable  of 
understanding,  the  above  commands  of  the  Lord  as  address- 
ed to  them;  to  show  them  how  the  Lord,  the  Head  of  the 


SECTION    II.  101 

Church,  the  good  Shepherd,  who  "gathers  the  lambs  in 
his  arms  and   carries  them    in    his  bosom,"  the  kind  and 
condescending  Saviour,  who  said,    "  Suffer  the  little  chil- 
dren  to   come  unto  me,   and  forbid  them  not  for  of  such 
is  the  kingdom  of  heaven," — how  He  in  these  words  tells 
them  their  duty,  and  shows  them   the   motives, — motives 
of  grateful  love  to  himself, — by  which  they  should  be  in- 
fluenced  in   the  fulfilling  of  it.     Do  our  baptist  brethren 
wait  till  their  children    are    members  of  churches,  before 
they  venture  to  put  their  finger  on  the  passages  we  have 
quoted,  and  say,    "  This  is  addressed  to  you?"     If  they 
do  not,   they  act  inconsistently  with  their  principles;    for 
if  the   words  were  not  originally  addressed    to   the  young 
children  of  the  parents  in   the  churches,  neither  are  they 
now  : — and  yet  if  they   do,   they  discharge  their  parental 
trust,  as  it  appears  to  me,  in  a  very  defective  and  unscrip- 
tural  manner.     Of  many  of  them  whom  I  know,  and  es- 
teem, and  love,  I  am  persuaded  better  things.     Yet  every 
baptist,  who,  in  the  christian  tuition  of  his  family,  opens 
his  Bible,  and  points  out   to  his  little  interesting  charge, 
the  words  "  Children,  obey  your  parents  in  the  Lord  ;  for 
this   is  right," — and  tenderly  incu.cates   the  duty  by  the 
motives  that  are  involved  in  the  "  nurture  and  admonition 
of  the  Lord," — tacitly  admits  by  his  practice  that  young 
children  were  addressed    by   the  apostles, — and  that,  not 
merely  as  members  of  families,  but,  since  the  epistles  were 
directed    to   churches,  as  in  some  way  connected,  by  vir- 
tue of  their  relation  to  their  parents,  with  the  little  chris- 
tian communities  to   which  the  apostles  wrote.     And  this 
is   in   perfect  harmony  with   the  baptism  of  families,  and 
with  all  the  preceding  particulars  ; — and  in  harmony  too 
with  all  the  directions  given  as  to  the  treatment  of  chil- 
dren  in  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures,  when  their  cove- 
nant relation   to  their  parents,  and  their  connection  with 
the  community  of  the  people  of  God,  are  not  questioned. 

X.  The  circumstances  of  the  early  history  of  the 
church,  after  the  apostolic  age  are  unaccountable  on  anti- 
paBdobaptist  principles. 

The  advocates  of  these  principles  allege,   that  the  first 
writer  by  whom  infant-baptism  is  expressly  mentioned,  is 
Tertuliian,  who  lived  in  the  beginning  of  the  third  cen- 
*8 


102  SECTION    II. 

tury,  a  hundred  years  and  more  after  the  apostolic  age  : — 
and  he,  says  Mr.  Cox,  "  in  fact  condemns  it !"  Em- 
phasis is  thus  laid  on  tho  peculiar  opinion  of  this  father. 
But  the  question  before  us  is  not  one  of  opinion  but  ofjact. 
Tertullian  was  remarkable  for  singular  and  extravagant 
opinions.  "  He  was  endowed,"  says  Mosheim,  "  with  a 
great  genius,  but  seemed  deficient  in  point  of  judgment. 
His  piety  was  warm  and  vigorous,  but,  at  the  same  time, 
melancholy  and  austere.  His  learning  was  extensive 
and  profound;  and  yet  his  credulity  and  superstition  were 
such  as  might  have  been  expected  from  the  darkest  igno- 
rance. And  with  respect  to  his  reasonings,  they  had 
more  of  that  subtlety  that  dazzles  the  imagination,  than 
of  that  solidity  that  brings  light  and  conviction  to  the 
mind." — On  the  particular  subject  before  us,  he  not  only 
advised  the  delay  of  baptism  in  the  case  of  infants,  but 
also  of  unmarried  persons.  Will  our  baptist  brethren  ad- 
mit the  inference  as  to  the  latter,  which  they  draw  so  com- 
placently as  to  the  former?  The  truth  is,  that,  as  to  both 
the  legitimate  inference  is  the  very  contrary.  The  very 
advice  to  delay,  or,  if  you  will,  the  condemnation  of  bap- 
tism in  infancy  (though  these  two  are  from  being  the  same, 
and  the  former  alone  properly  belongs  to  Tertullian)  is  a 
conclusive  evidence  of  the  previous  existence  of  the  prac- 
tice. This  is  the  point.  The  opinion  is  nothing  to  the 
purpose.  It  has  no  authority.  If  our  baptist  friends 
think  it  has,  let  them  do  the  good  old  father  justice, 
and  follow  it  fully. —  His  condemning  the  practice  of  bap- 
tizing infants,  so  far  from  being  in  their  favor,  militates 
against  them.  It  not  only  proves  its  previous  existence; 
it  proves  more.  It  proves  that  it  was  no  innovation.  When 
a.  man  condemns  a  practice,  he  is  naturally  desirous  to 
support  his  peculiar  views  by  the  strongest  arguments. 
Could  Tertullian,  therefore,  have  shown,  that  the  prac- 
tice was  of  recent  origin ;  that  it  had  been  introduced  in 
his  own  day,  or  even  at  any  time  subsequent  to  the  lives 
of  the  apostles  ;  we  have  every  reason  to  believe,  he  would 
have  availed  himself  of  a  ground  so  obvious,  and  so  con- 
clusive. It  proves  still  further,  that  the  baptism  of  in- 
fants was  the  general  practice  of  the  church  in  Tertulli- 
an's  time.     His  opinion  is  his  own.     It  is  that  of  a  dis- 


SECTION    II.  103 

sentient  from  the  universal  body  of  professing  Christians. 
He  never  pretends  to  say,  that  any  part  of  the  church  had 
held  or  acted  upon  it.  Of  his  opinion  and  advice,  then 
we  may  say,  Valeant  quantum  valere  possunt.  But  the 
total  absence  of  any  attempt  to  suppott  and  recommend 
them,  by  appeal  to  the  practice  of  the  church  in  apostolic 
times,  or  of  any  part  of  the  church  at  any  intervening  pe- 
riod between  those  times  and  his  own,  certainly  goes  far 
to  prove  the  mutter  of  fact ,  with  which  alone  we  have  to 
do, — that  infant-baptism  was  the  original  and  universal 
practice." 

Origen,  who  was  contemporary  with  Tertullian,  ex- 
pressly declares  infant-baptism  to  have  been  the  constant 
usage  of  the  church  from  the  apostles.  He  says,  "The 
baptism  of  the  church  is  given  for  the  forgiveness  of  sins: 
but  why  are  infants,  by  the  usage  of  the  church,  baptized, 
if  there  is  nothing  in  them  that  needs  forgiveness?" 

Further,  he  says,  '  Infants  are  baptized  for  the  remis- 
sion of  sins  ;  for  none  is  free  from  pollution,  though  his 
life  be  but  the  length  of  one  day  upon  the  earth.  And  it 
is  for  that  reason,  because  by  baptism  the  pollution  of  our 
birth  is  taken  away,  that  infants  arc  baptized' 

Again,  he  observes,  '  The  church  had  from  the  apostles 
an  order  to  give  baptism  to  infants  ;  for  they,  to  tvhom 
the  Divine  mysteries  were  committed,  knew  that  there 
was  in  all  persons  the  natural  pollution  of  sin,  which  must 
be  done  away  by  water  and  the  Spirit.' 

"  Now,  as  Origen,  in  these  passages,  argues  from  infant- 
baptism  to  prove  original  sin,  we  may  conclude  it  was  an 
uncontroverted  usage  of  the  church  :  for  otherwise,  he 
could  not  with  propriety  have  used  it  as  an  argument  to  es- 
tablish another  point."* 

This  remark  is  judicious  and  strong.  The  reader  will 
also  bear  in  mind,  that  it  is  solely  with  matter  of  fact 
that  we  are  at  present  concerned,  and  not  with  the  partic- 
ular opinions  of  fathers,  whether  right  or  wrong. 

"Cyprian,  who  wrote  about  150 years  after  the  apostles, 
gives  a  fuller  testimony   to  this  fact"   (of  the  baptism  of 

*  Sermons  on  the  Mode  and  Subjects  of  Baptism,  &c.  By  Joseph  Lath- 
rop,  D.  D.  New  England. 


104 


SECTION    II. 


infants  being  the  nncontroverted  usage  of  the  church). 
*'  In  his  time,  a  question  was  started  by  one  Fidus,  not 
whether  infants  might  be  baptized,  but  whether  baptism 
ought  not  to  be  given  them  on  the  eighth  day,  according 
to  the  law  of  circumcision  ?  This  question  was  proposed 
to  a  council  of  sixty-six  bishops,  convened  at  Carthage, 
who  unanimously  resolved,  that  the  baptism  of  infants 
ought  not  to  he  deferred  to  the  eighth  day,  but  might  be  giv- 
en them  at  any  time  before.  And  a  large  letter  to  this 
purpose,  containing  the  reasons  of  the  resolve,  was  writ- 
ten and  signed  by  Cyprian,  in  the  name  of  the  council. 
Now if  infant  baptism  had  been  a  usage  lately  in- 
troduced, some  or  all  of  these  ministers  must  have  known 
its  recent  origin.  And  if  so,  it  was  very  strange  that  not 
one  of  them  intimated  any  scruple  about  it.  Whether 
infants  should  be  baptized,  seems  not  to  have  been  at  all 
a  question  ;  but  only  whether  their  baptism  needed  to  be 
deferred  till  the  eighth  day,  which,  without  hesitancy,  was 
determined  in  the  negative.* 

"Austin,  about  300  years  after  the  apostles,  had  a  con- 
troversy with  Pelagius  about  original  sin  ;  and  to  prove 
it,  he  frequently  urges  infant  baptism,  demanding  why  in- 
fants are  baptized  for  the  remission  of  sins,  if  they  have 
none?  Pelagius,  though  greatly  puzzled  with  the  argu- 
ment, yet  never  pretends  that  infant  baptism  was  an  un- 
scriptural  innovation,  or  a  partial  usage  in  the  church  ; 
which,  had  it  been  true,  a  man  of  his  very  extensive  ac- 
quaintance with  the  world  must  have  known  :  and  had  he 
known  it,  he  doubtless  would  have  said  it,  when  he  found 
himself  embarrassed  with  the  argument.!     But,  far  from 

*  Ibid. 

t  Mr.  M i I ner  justly  deduces  the  same  inference  from  the  instance  of  Coe- 
lestius,  the  supporter  of  the  Pelagian  heresy  in  Africa,  in  the  beginning  of 
the  fifth  century. — "  He  was  accused  of  denying  original  sin  ;  and  when  he 
was  pressed  with  the  custom  of  die  church  in  baptizing  infants,  as  a  proof 
of  her  belief  in  all  ages  that  infants  needed  redemption,  he  declared  that 
they  had  no  need  of  remission,  and  yet  ought  to  be  baptized,  lhat  they 
might  be  sanctified  in  Christ." — ''On  being  asked,  whether  he  had  not  as- 
serted, that  infants  are  born  in  the  state  in  which  Adam  was  before  trans- 
gression, all  that  could  be  obtained  from  him  was,  that  infants  needed  bap- 
tism, and  ought  to  be  baptized.*'— The  first  of  two  inferences  drawn,  in  a 
note,  from  this  case,  is  :  That  the  right  of  baptizing  infants  was  allowed  on 
all  sides  to  have  been  of  apostolical  and  primitive  authority.  It  is  impossi- 
ble lhat  men  so  shrewd  and  learned  as  Coslestius  and  his  master  would  not 
have  objected  to  the  novelty  of  infant  baptism,  had  it  been  a  novelty."-— 
Chap.  III.  Cent.  V, 


SECTION    II.  105 

intimating  any  such  thing,  when  some  charged  upon  him 
the  denial  of  infant  baptism,  as  a  consequence  of  his  opin- 
ion, lie  disavows  the  consequence,  and  complains  that  he 
had  been  slanderously  represented  as  denying  baptism  to 
infants.  He  asks,  '  Who  can  be  so  impious,  as  to  hinder 
infants  from  being  baptized,  and  born  again  in  Christ.' 
And,  citing  those  words,  '  Except  one  be  born  of  water 
and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of 
God,'  he  says,  who  can  be  so  impious  as  to  refuse  to  an  in- 
fant, of  whatever  acre,  the  common  redemption  of  man- 
kind ?  And  many  other  expressions  he  uses,  which  plain- 
ly suppose,  that  infant  baptism  had  been  practised  univer- 
sally, and  time  out  of  mind."* 

This  last  citation  shows,  whence  the  application  origi- 
nated of  the  term  regeneration  to  baptism  ,  namely,  from 
our  Lord's  language,  "  Except  a  man  be  born  of  mater, 
and  of  the  Spirit."  The  phrase,  "  born  of  water,"  very 
naturally  accounts  for  the  early  application  of  the  terms 
significant  of  the  spiritual  change,  to  the  external  symbol. 
The  phraseology  indeed  gives  no  counten  nice  to  the  un- 
scriptural  and  irrational  figment  of  baptismal  regeneration, 
any  more  than  the  declaration,  "This  is  my  body,"  gives 
to  iniusubstantiatioij,  or  the  red  presence.  Ii  may  show 
us,  however,  whence  the  foolish  and  pernicious  fincy 
arose  ,  and  at  all  events,  it  explains  the  early  use  of  sim- 
ilar phraseology,  by  the  Christian  writers,  in  regard  to  bap- 
tism.— The  phraseology  of  PHagius,  in  the  preceding 
quotation,  appears  to  have  come  down  current  from  an 
earlier  age. — "  Irenasus,  who  wrote  about  sixty-seven  years 
after  the  apostles,  and  was  born,  it  is  said,  before  the 
death  of  St.  John,  and  was  acquainted  with  Polycarp, 
who  was  John's  disciple,  says  concerning  Christ,  lie  c  one 
to  save  all  persons  by  himself,  who  by  him  are  regenerated 
unto  God,  infants,  little  ones,  youths,  and  elderly  persons." 
— That  by  being  "  regenerated  unto  God"  he  means  be* 
ing  baptized,  candor,  I  think,  ought  to  admit,  when  the 
expression  is  compared  with  that  of  Pelagius,  and  when 
the  explanation  of  Irenasus  himself  is  considered—"  When 
Christ  gave  his  disciples  the  com  mat.  d  at  regenerating 
unto  God,  he  said.  Go.,  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them," 
*  Ibid. 


106 


SECTION     II. 


&c.  Now,  our  baptist  brethren  themselves  being  judges, 
infants  are  incapable  of  being  "  regenerated  unto  God" 
by  means  of  human  instruction.  So  far  as  the  agency  of 
man  is  concerned,  they  could  only  be  partakers  of  the 
external  sign. 

"Justin  Martyr,  who  wrote  about  forty  years  after  the 
apostolic  age,  says,  '  We  have  not  received  the  carnal  but 
the  spiritual  circumcision  by  baptism — And  it  is  enjoined 
to  all  persons  to  receive  it  in  the  same  way.'  Here  he 
plainly  considers  baptism  as  succeeding  in  the  place  of 
circumcision,  and  consequently  as  being  designed  for  in- 
fants, as  thai  was  :  which  opinion  he  could  not  easily  have 
fallen  into,  if  the  apostles  had  universally,  both  in  doc- 
trine and  practice  rejected  infants.  In  one  of  his  apolo- 
gies for  the  Christians,  he  says,  '  Several  persons  among 
us,  of  sixty  and  seventy  years  old,  who  were  made  disci- 
ples to  Christ  from  their  childhood,  do  continue  uncor- 
rupt.'  Made  disciples.  He  uses  the  same  word  which 
is  used  in  the  commission,  Disciple  all  nations,  baptizing 
them.  If  they  were  made  disciples,  they  were  doubtless 
baptized."* 

Does  the  reader  marvel  that  infint  bap  tism  should 
not  be  spoken  of  more  frequently,  and  in  more  direct  and 
explicit  terms,  during  the  tirst  century  after  the  apostles? 
Let  him  only  suppose  the  (incontroverted  universality  of 
the  practice  from  the  beginning,  and  his  wonder  will 
cease.  That  which  goes  on  as  the  understood  and  estab- 
lished usage,  ii  is  quite  natural  to  expect  should  be  but 
seldom  spoken  of,  and,  when  it  is,  only  in  the  way  of  in- 
direct and  incidental  allusion.  Circumcision  is  never  al- 
luded to  for  more  than  a  century  and  a  half  after  its  in- 
stitution, when  an  occurrence  in  the  history,  the  violation 
of  Jacob's  daughter,  the  proposal  of  marriage  with  her 
by  the  prince  of  Shechem,  and  the  artful  revenge  of  the 
patriarch's  sons,  leads  to  the  incidental  mention  of  it  ; — 
and  from  that  time,  it  is  never  noticed  again  for  nearly 
two  centuries  and  a  half,  till  the  circumcision  of  the 
younger  son  of  Moses  by  his  mother  Zipporah. — The  case 
is  similar,  during  the  first  century  after  the  apostles,  with 
regard  to  infant  baptism.  It  is  occasionally  alluded  to,  in 
terms,  on  which,  we  are  not  disposed  to  deny,  au  adver- 
*  Ibid, 


SECTION    II.  107 

sary,  now  that  it  has  come  to  be  controverted,  may  plau- 
sibly put  another  construction  ;  and  the  first  that  speaks 
of  it  in  plain  language,  and  by  its  proper  name,  is  the  first 
that  questions  and  objects  to  it.  And  on  what  grounds 
does  he  object  1  Not  that  the  practice  was  without  apos- 
tolic authority  ; — not  that  it  was  a  recent  and  unscriptural 
innovation  ; — not  even  that  it  was  only  partially  observed 
in  the  church  : — no;  he  never  hints  any  such  things  as 
these.  His  objections  proceed,  chiefly,  on  a  superstitious 
notion  he  had  come  to  attach  to  the  rite,  on  which  he 
founds  a  proposal  for  the  delay  of  its  admir  istration  ; — a 
proposal,  including  not  merely  infants,  but  unmarried  per- 
sons, and  having  precisely  the  same  authority  as  to  both, 
— the  authority,  that  is,  of  Tertuliian's  fanciful  singular- 
ity. 

"  Curcellaeus  remarks,"  says  Mr.  Cox,  "  The  baptism 
of  infants  in  the  first  two  centuries  after  Christ,  was  al- 
together unknown."  But  of  what  amount  is  the  gratis 
dictum  of  Curcellaeus,  or  of  any  man  1  With  regard  to 
the  first  of  these  two  centuries,  which  we  may  denominate 
the  apostolic  century,  we  claim  the  privilege,  w  hatever 
Curcellaeus  may  remark,  of  forming  our  own  judgment 
from  the  apostolic  records  themselves,  till  other  and  high- 
er authority  be  produced.  And  as  to  the  second;  even 
supposing  we  were  wrong  in  our  interpretation  of  Justin 
Martyr  and  Irenaeus, — what  are  we  to  make  of  Tertullian 
and  Origen  in  the  beginning  of  the  third  ?  According  to 
the  remark  of  Curcellaeus  the  practice  of  infant  baptism 
was  "  altogether  unknown"  till  after  the  beginning  of  this 
century  :  which  amounts  to  the  same  thing  as  saying,  that 
these  fathers  witnessed  its  introduction,  and  were  aware 
of  its  being  a  practice  totally  new  and  unheard  of  before  ! 
How  then  comes  Tertullian  to  assume  its  previous  exis- 
tence, without  the  remotest  hint  of  its  novelty  or  its  par- 
tial extent  ?  And  how  comes  Origen  to  speak  of  it  as  the 
"  usage  of  the  church,"  and  received  as  "  an  order  from 
the  apostles?" — And  how  comes  it,  I  ask  further,  that  no 
baptist  has  ever  been  able  to  discover,  and  to  point  out, 
the  time  when  infant  baptism  was  introduced — to  trace 
the  practice  to  any  origin  on  this  side  of  the  apostolic  age? 
Had  nothing  of  the  kind  existed  originally,  then  there 


108  SECTION    II. 

was,  from  the  first,  throughout  all  the  churches,  a  stand- 
ing practical  testimony  against  it.  Yet  not  the  slightest 
vestige  is  to  be  found,  by  which  its  introduction  into  the 
Christian  church,  and  its  early  and  universal  reception, 
can  be  traced.  The  time  of  Tertullian  was  the  time,  not 
when  it  began  to  be  practised ',  but  only  to  be  questioned; 
and  questioned,  not  as  unauthorized  and  unlawful,  but,  on 
certain  grounds  of  the  author's  own,  as  generally  (for  he 
admits  of  exceptions)  inexpedient. — It  has  been  said,  in- 
deed, that  about  the  end  of  the  second  century,  an  opin- 
ion began  to  prevail,  of  the  necessity  of  baptism  to  salva- 
tion ;  that  parents  naturally  took  the  alarm  for  the  salvation 
of  their  children;  and  that  hence  arose  infant  baptism. 
Now,  it  is  very  convenient  to  find  a  fact  in  history,  on 
which  we  can  found  a  plausible  hypothesis.  But  we  must 
still  distinguish  between  the  hypothesis  and  the  fact.  The 
latter  is  history,  the  former  is  fancy  alone,  and  conjecture. 
And,  if  we  are  to  deal  in  theory  and  hypothesis  at  all,  to 
me  it  appears,  in  the  present  case,  an  incomparably  more 
natural  and  reasonable  conjecture,  that  the  opinion  arose 
from  the  practice,  than  that  the  practice  arose  from  the 
opinion.  If  about  the  end  of  the  second  century,  "  pa- 
rents took  the  alarm  for  the  salvation  of  their  children," 
and  had  them,  on  this  account,  baptized,  then  the  whole 
Christian  church  must  have  previously,  for  nearly  two  hun- 
dred years,  believed  in  the  salvation  of  their  children  with- 
out baptism.  Now,  when  we  have  hypothesis  on  both  sides, 
that  is  most  entitled  to  credit  which  is  simplest  and  most 
natural.  The  question  therefore  is,  (since  no  historian 
has  recorded  this  alarm  of  parents,  as  the  origin  of  infant 
baptism,)  whether  is  it  most  likely,  that  the  universal 
practice  of  the  baptism  of  infants  should  have  led  the 
minds  of  men  to  connect  their  baptism  with  their  salvation, 
and  thus  to  fall  into  the  opinion  of  its  necessity,  and  the 
danger  of  omitting  it ;  or  whether,  in  opposition  to  the 
previous  conviction  of  two  centuries,  the  opinion  came 
first  to  be  entertained,  and  the  baptism  of  infants  to  be 
founded  upon  it,  and  to  have  become  almost  instantane- 
ously universal? — I  must  honestly  say,  that  I  can  enter- 
tain but  a  low  estimate  of  that  man's  perspicacity,  or 
candor,  that  can  hesitate  between  these  two  suppositions. 


SECTION    II.  109 

A  similar  remark  may  be  made,  respecting  certain  oth- 
er practices  which  were  early  introduced  into  the  church, 
and  which  our  antipaedobaptist  brethren  are  very  fond  of 
quoting,  as  on  the  same  footing  with  infant  baptism  : — the 
early  practice,  for  example,  of  administering  the  Lord's 
Supper  to  infants.  The  previous  existence  of  the  admis- 
sion of  infants  to  one  Christian  ordinance,  affords  a  very 
natural  origin  for  the  practice  of  introducing  them  to 
another.  The  one  might  very  readily  be  grafted  upon  the 
other,  whereas  it  is  very  far  from  being  so  easily  account- 
ed for,  that  both  should  have  taken  place  so  early,  and  the 
former  so  universally,  without  the  least  opposition  or 
noise. 

XI.  I  have  only  one  other  particular  to  add  to  this  se- 
ries. It  is  the  remarkable  fact,  of  the  entire  absence,  so 
far  as  my  recollection  serves  me,  of  any  thing  resembling 
the  baptism  of  households  or  families,  in  the  accounts  of 
the  propagation  of  the  gospel  by  our  baptist  brethren. 
That  the  apostles  baptized  families,  no  believer  of  the 
scripture  history  can  doubt;  and  we  have  seen,  that  the 
manner  in  which  such  baptisms  are  recorded,  or  referred 
to,  indicates  that  it  was  no  extraordinary  thing.  Now  it 
surely  is  an  extraordinary  thing,  that  in  the  journals  and 
periodical  accounts  of  baptist  missions  in  heathen  coun- 
tries, we  should  never  meet  with  any  thing  of  the  kind. 
I  question,  whether,  in  the  thirty  years  of  the  history  of 
the  baptist  mission  in  India,  there  is  to  be  found  a  single 
instance  of  the  baptism  of  a  household.  When  do  we 
find  a  baptist  missionary  saying,  "  When  she  was  baptized 
and  her  family" — or,  "  I  baptized  the  family  of  Krishnoo," 
or  any  other  convert?  We  have  the  baptism  of  individu- 
als ;  but  nothing  corresponding  to  the  apostolic  baptism  of 
families.  This  fact  is  a  strong  corroborative  proof,  that 
there  is  some  difference  between  their  practice  and  that 
of  the  apostles.  If  the  practice  of  both  were  the  same, 
there  might  surely  be  expected  some  little  correspondence 
in  the  facts  connected  with  it. 

Let  me,  in  concluding  this   section,  entreat  the  reader 

to  take  all   these  things  together,  calmly,  dispassionately, 

candidly. — I  have  endeavored   to  show,  that  the  Old  and 

New  Testament  churches,  though  different  in  their  con- 

9 


110  SECTION    II. 

Stitutioual  forms,  and  in  the  degree  of  their  spirituality, 
are  most  clearly  and  distinctly  represented,  both  by 
prophets  under  the  former,  and  apostles  under  the  latter 
dispensation,  as  substantially  the  same: — that  the  con- 
nection of  children  with  their  parents,  in  the  promises  of 
the  covenant,  and  in  the  application  of  its  sign  and  seal, 
existed  under  the  Patriarchal  and  Mosaic  dispensations, 
was  interwoven  with  all  the  thoughts  and  feelings  and 
practices  of  the  Old  Testament  church,  and  pervaded  and 
characterized  the  entire  style  and  language  of  their  sa- 
cred books  : — that  the  prophets,  in  their  inspired  predic- 
tions relative  to  the  New  Testament  times,  employ  lan- 
guage, such  as  directly  affirms,  or  evidently  implies  and 
assumes,  the  continuance  of  the  same  connection  under 
the  approaching  reign  of  the  Messiah  : — that,  on  coming 
forward  to  the  New  Testament  records  themselves,  so  far 
from  finding  any  direct  repeal,  or  even  any  indirect  inti- 
mation of  change  in  the  previous  state  of  things,  we  find 
language  in  perfect  accordance  with  it,  exactly  such  as,  on 
the  supposition  of  its  continuance,  we  might,  a  priori, 
hare  expected  the  writers  to  use  ;  instead  of  an  express 
declaration  that  children  were  no  longer  to  be  admitted 
to  the  seal  of  the  covenant,  and  acknowledged  as  visible 
subjects  of  the  reign  of  Christ,  we  have  Christ  himself 
saying,  "  Suffer  the  little  children  to  come  unto  rne,  and 
forbid  them  not ;  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  God  ;" 
we  have  the  apostles,  in  the  very  outset  and  establishment 
of  that  kingdom,  declaring  to  Jews,  without  explan- 
ation or  comment,  "  The  promise  is  unto  you  and  unto 
your  children  ;"  and  we  have  the  unquestioned  fact  of 
the  baptism  of  families,  recorded  in  terms  such  as  indi- 
cate its  having  been,  not  an  extraordinary,  but  a  custom- 
ary thing,  on  the  professed  faith  of  the  head  : — that  it  is 
exceedingly  improbable,  that  a  change  of  such  magnitude 
and  importance  as  the  entire  exclusion  of  children  from 
the  place  they  were  accustomed  to  hold,  should  have  been 
introduced  without  the  slightest  recorded  symptom  of  op- 
position or  demurring  amongst  the  Jewish  converts,  ten- 
acious as  they  showed  themselves  of  the  established  usa- 
ges, or  of  objection  and  cavil  on  the  part  of  those  who  lay 
at  the  catch  for  whatever  they  could  get  hold  of  against 


SECTION    II.  Ill 

the  new  system  : — thai,  so  far  from  this,  when  the  Judaiz- 
ing  teachers  insisted  on  the  necessity  of  the  Gentile 
converts  submitting  to  circumcision,  which  must  of  course 
have  been  administered  to  their  children  as  well  as  to 
themselves,  no  notice  whatever  is  taken  by  the  apostles 
and  elders  assembled  at  Jerusalem,  of  the  inconsistency 
with  the  spiritual  nature  of  the  new  dispensation  of  ad- 
ministering to  children,  on  the  admission  of  their  parents 
to  the  Christian  church,  any  sign  of  covenant  connection 
with  them, — although  an  inconsistency  so  great  as,  in  the 
opinion  of  our  baptist  brethren,  to  amount  to  a  subversion 
of  the  spirituality  of  Messiah's  kingdom  : — that  we  have 
no  recorded  instance  of  the  baptism  of  any  adult  that  had 
been  born  of  baptized  proselytes,  Jewish  or  Gentile,  to 
the  faith  of  Christ — although  this  class  of  persons  must, 
on  the  antipaedobaptist  hypothesis,  have  been  very  nu- 
merous indeed  : — that  in  the  apostolic  epistles  to  the 
churches,  children  are  expressly  addressed,  not  merely 
adults,  but  such  as  were  yet  to  be  "  brought  up  in  the 
nuture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord  ;"  and,  although  the 
spiritual  training  of  them  is  especially  devolved  upon  their 
parents,  yet  their  being  so  addressed  shows  that  they  were 
considered  by  the  writers  as  having  connection  with  the 
Christian  community  :  that  the  circumstances  of  the  early 
history  of  the  church,  after  the  time  of  the  apostles,  do  not 
admi:  of  a  satisfactory  explanation  on  baptist  principles, — 
whilst  they  are  in  perfect  harmony  with  the  supposition 
cf  paedobaptism  having  been  the  original  practice, — this 
most  simply  accounting  for  other  facts,  rather  than  being 
accounted  for  by  them  : — and  that  the  entire  absence,  in 
the  history  of  the  propagation  of  the  gospel  by  antipaedo- 
baptists,  of  any  thing  resembling  the  baptism  of  families 
which  we  find  in  apostolic  times,  should  lead  our  breth- 
ren more  than  to  suspect  a  difference  between  their  views 
and  practice,  and  those  of  the  first  preachers  of  the  king- 
dom of  Christ. — I  say,  let  the  reader  take  all  these  things 
together  ;  let  him  connect  them  with  the  argument  of  the 
preceding  section  ;  and  let  him  form  his  own  conclusion. 
Nothing  could  be  easier,  than  to  blow  trumpets,  and  to 
make  a  flourish,  and  to  shout  and  vaunt  with  the  tri- 
umphant confidence  of  victory.     But  it  is  not  victory  that 


112  SECTION    II. 

should  be  our  object,  but  solely  the  discovery  of  truth  and 
duty. —  I  prefer  no  claims  to  originality,  in  almost  a  single 
statement  or  argument  I  have  advanced.  If  I  have  suc- 
ceeded in  bringing  old  arguments  into  a  well  connected 
and  luminous  form,  it  is  all  that  1  have  aimed  at.  Truth 
does  not  suffer  by  time  ;  nor  is  a  good  old  argument  at  all 
the  worse  for  iis  age.  I  can  only  say  for  myself,  coolly 
and  deliberately,  and  with  perfect  sincerity,  that  the  more 
I  have  considered  this  case,  I  have  ever  felt  my  ground 
the  firmer.  Whether  I  may  have  conveyed  the  same  im- 
pression to  the  minds  of  my  readers,  I  cannot  tell.  It  is 
certainly  my  prayer  to  God  that  I  may,  because  I  believe 
the  conclusion,  which  I  have  been  endeavoring  to  estab- 
lish, has  the  sanction  and  authority  of  his  word. 


SECTION    III. 


It  has  often  been  asked  by  antipaedobaptists,  What  are 
the  uses  of  infant-baptism  ?  What  good  ends  are  answer- 
ed by  it?  And  their  own  reply  to  the  question  may  be 
given  in  the  words  of  Mr.  Birt  ;*  "  It  is,  on  every  ground 
hitherto  taken  for  its  support,  a  cause  that  in  this  world 
produces  no  effect — a  means  connected  with  no  end — a 
cloud  that  affords  no  rain — a  tree  that  yields  no  fruit." — 
This  representation,  I  hope  to  show,  has  a  great  deal 
more  in  it  of  boldness,  than  of  truth. 

It  ought  first  to  be  observed,  however,  that  with  regard 
to  all  such  questions  as  the  one  so  often  put  and  so  con- 
fidently answered,  there  is  obviously  a  previous  question, 
namely,  that  which  we  have  been  considering  in  the  pre- 
ceding sections,  Is  it,  or  is  it  not,  a  divine  institution  ? 
If  it  be  once  shown  to  possess  the  authority  of  the  su- 
preme Lawgiver,  it  will  not  be  disputed,  that  our  first  and 
immediate  duty  is  compliance.  What  he  appoints,  it  is 
ours  to  observe.  Questions  of  a  similar  kind  might  have 
been  asked  respecting  circumcision.  Multitudes  of  those 
to  whom  that  rite  was  administered  died  in  infancy  :  of 
what  use  was  it  to  them  ?  Multitudes  who  lived  till  man- 
hood, never  obtained  the  blessings  of  the  temporal  inheri- 
tence  ;  what  was  the  benefit  of  it  to  them  ? — Eut  it  is  not 
with  questions  of  this  nature  that  we  have,  in  the  first  in- 
stance, to  do.  Our  ffrst  inquiry  should  be,  What  is  God's 
will  1  not  Why  is  it  his  will  ? 

Still  however  we  freely  admit, it  is  reasonable  to  expect 
that  there  should  be  some  uses  apparent  of  whatever  the 
God  of  infinite  wisdom  enjoins  : — and  on  the  present  oc- 
casion, we  feel  no  difficulty  in  meeting  the  inquiry.  Of 
baptism  as  administered  to  infants  we  are  at  no  loss  to 
*  Strictures,  p.  10. 

*9 


114  SECTION    III. 

point  out  uses,  which  we  conceive  to  be  of  no  trivial  mag- 
nitude. We  shall  endeavor  to  show  these  by  considering 
it  in  the  two  following  lights  : — 1.    As   a  memorial  of 

FUNDAMENTAL     TRUTHS  '. 2.      As    A     REMEMBRANCER     OF 

IMPORTANT  DUTIES,  AND  AN  ENCOURAGEMENT  TO  THEIR 
PERFORMANCE. 

I.  In  considering  infant-baptism  in  the  former  of  these 
views,  as  a  memorial  of  fundamental  truths,  it  becomes 
necessary  to  take  some  notice,  in  the  first  place,  of  the 
general  signification  of  the  rite  itself.  It  appears, 
then,  to  me  very  evident,  that  the  emblematic  significance 
of  baptism  is  to  be  found  in  the  purifying  nature  of  the 
element  employed  in  it, — in  the  cleansing  virtue  of  water. 
Almost  every  instance  in  which  the  ordinance  is  spoken 
of,  or  alluded  to,  with  any  intimation  of  its  meaning, 
might  be  adduced  in  proof  of  this.  The  following  passa- 
ges are  but  a  specimen  of  many  :  Acts  xxii.  16.  "  And 
now,  why  tarriest  thou?  Arise  and  be  baptized,  and  wash 
away  thy  sins,  calling  on  the  name  of  the  Lord."  Eph. 
v.  25,  20.  "Christ  loved  the  church,  and  gave  himself 
for  it,  that  he  might  sanctify  and  cleanse  it  by  the  wash- 
ing of  water,  through  the  word  ;  that  he  might  present  it 
to  himself  a  glorious  church,  not  having  spot  or  wrinkle 
or  any  such  thing,  but  that  it  should  be  holy  and  without 
blemish."  In  this  latter  passage,  spiritual  purification  is 
no  doubt  intended  ;  but  it  contains  such  an  allusion  to 
the  ordinance  of  baptism  with  water,  as  leads  us  to  con- 
clude, that  this  spiritual  purification  is  what  it  is  designed 
principally  to  represent. — A  similar  allusion  there  seems 
to  be  in  Tit.  iii.  5.  "  Not  by  works  of  righteousness 
which  we  have  done,  but  according  to  his  mercy  he  saved 
us,  by  the  washing  of  regeneration,  and  renewing  of  the 
Holy  Ghost." 

From  these  and  other  passages  it  appears,  that  baptism, 
by  the  emblem  of  the  cleansing  virtue  of  water,  denotes 
the  removal  of  sin,  in  its  guilt,  and  in  its  pollution.  Of 
such  allusions,  indeed,  the  scriptures  are  full.  And  sure- 
ly, that  view  which  is  most  frequently  exhibited  to  our 
attention,  and  which  both  on  the  subject  of  justification 
and  sanctification,  imparts,  if  I  may  so  speak,  a  peculiar 
figurative  complexion  to  the  current  language  of  scrip- 


SECTION    III.  115 

ture,  I  am  warranted  to  consider  as  at  least  the  principal, 
if  not  even  the  exclusive  import  of  the  institution. 

But  according  to  the  views  of  our  baptist  brethren, 
washing,  or  cleansing,  so  far  from  being  the  exclusive,  is 
not  even  the  principal,  but  only  a  secondary  meaning  of 
the  rite. — Whilst  the  general  tenor  of  the  language  of 
scripture,  as  well  as  a  number  of  particular  passages, 
seems  to  place  its  symbolical  meaning  in  the  nature  of  the 
element  employed,  it  is  by  them  placed  principally,  and  by 
some  of  them  indeed,  as  would  appear  from  their  in  inner 
of  expressing  themselves,  almost  solely,  in  the  mode,  in 
which  that  element  is  used. 

The  passages  referred  to  by  them,  in  support  of  this 
notion,  are  the  two  following  :  Rom.  vi.  3,  4.  "  Know  ye 
not,  that  so  many  of  us  as  were  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ 
were  baptized  into  his  death  ?  Therefore  we  are  buried 
with  him  by  baptism  into  death  ;  that  like  as  Christ  was 
raised  up  from  the  dead  by  the  glory  of  the  Father,  even 
so  we  also  should  walk  in  newness  of  life."  Col.  ii.  12. 
"  Buried  with  him  in  baptism,  wherein  also  ye  are  risen 
with  him,  through  the  faith  of  the  operation  of  God  who 
hath  raised  him  from  the  dead." — In  these  passages,  our 
brethren  conceive,  there  is  an  obvious  reference  to  the 
mode  of  baptism  by  immersion.  The  apostle  represents 
this  ordinance,  to  use  the  language  of  Mr.  Maclean,  in 
his  commission,  page  137,  as  "exhibiting  the  death,  bu- 
rial and  resurrection  of  Christ,  together  with  the  Chris- 
tian's communion  with,  and  conformity  to  him  therein." 
The  baptized  person's  communion  with  Christ  in  his 
death  and  burial,  is  represented  by  his  being  laid  under 
the  water ;  and  his  communion  with  him  in  his  resurrec- 
tion, by  his  being  raised  out  of  it. 

Two  things  may  just  be  noticed  here,  before  proceed- 
ing to  the  explanation  of  the  passages.  The  first  is,  that 
it  is  obviously  incorrect,  to  speak  of  the  ordinance  as 
"  exhibiting  the  death  of  Christ,"  as  well  as  his  burial  and 
resurrection  ;  for  whatever  resemblance  fancy  may  imag- 
ine to  the  two  latter,  there  is  surely  no  representation  of 
the  former.  The  death  can  only  be  considered  as  impli- 
ed in  the  burial. — The  second  is,  (what  has  been  largely 
shown  by  others.*)  that  even  to  the  burial   and  resurrec- 

*See  particularly  Mr.  E  wing's  late  Essay. 


116  SECTION    III. 

tion  of  Christ,  the  immersion  of  a  body  under  water,  and 
its  immersion  from  it,  bear  but  a  very  indistinct  and  re- 
mote resemblance.  The  mind  may  easily  indeed  habitu- 
ate itself  to  the  idea  of  likeness,  between  being  let  down 
under  earth  and  raised  out  of  it,  and  being  let  down  un- 
der water  and  raised  out  of  it.  But  where  is  the  likeness, 
between  the  latter  of  these  and  the  carrying  of  a  body,  by 
a  lateral  door  into  a  cavern  hewn  out  of  a  rock,  and  that 
body  reviving,  and  coming  forth  by  the  same  door? — 
which  were  the  real  circumstances  of  the  burial  and  res- 
urrection of  the  Saviour.  I  confess  this  resemblance,  on 
which  so  much  stress  is  laid  by  our  baptist  brethren,  has 
always  appeared  to  me  but  a  far  fetched  fancy.  I  shall 
say  nothing  stronger,  lest  I  should  possibly  be  in  the 
wrong  in  so  considering  it.  Of  one  thing,  however,  1 
must  express  my  firm  conviction,  namely,  that  any  allu- 
sion at  all  to  the  mode  of  baptism,  is  in  no  respect  neces- 
sary to  the  right  and  easy  understanding  of  the  passages 
in  question.  And  if  this  can  be  shown,  it  will  follow  of 
course  that  they  fjrm  but  a  flimsy  foundation  for  the  su- 
perstructure, of  sentiment  and  practice,  that  has  been 
reared  upon  them.  Lot  it  nor  be  said,  that  other  paedo- 
baptists  have  thought  differently,  have  admitted  an  allu- 
sion, and  endeavored  to  expl  tin  it  in  other  ways.  I  can- 
not help  that.  I  state  my  own  views,  and  wish  them  to 
be  tried,  not  by  comparison  with  those  of  others,  but  by 
the  test  of  the  Bible.  It  is  a  puny  and  pitiful  way  of 
carrying  on  a  controversy,  to  prowl  about  amongst  differ- 
ent writers  on  the  same  side  of  the  question,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  detecting,  and  setting  forth  in  contrasted  columns, 
every  little  discrepancy  between  them  ;  with  the  view, 
covert  or  avowed,  of  drawing  the  reader  to  the  conclusion, 
that  they  cannot  be  right  who  so  differ  from  one  another. 
Our  baptist  friends  are  rather  too  fond  of  this  attempt  to 
divide  us  against  ourselves.  Yet  were  it  altogether  an 
honorable  description  of  warfare,  it  is  one  in  which  we 
might  venture  on  competition,  without  despairing  of  suc- 
cess. 

With  regard  to  the  passages  in  question,  Mr.  Maclean, 
the  eminent  baptist  writer  referred  to  a  little  ago,  well  ex- 
plains  their  spiritual  meaning  to  he — "  That,  by  a  gra- 


SECTION    III.  117 

cious  constitution,  Christ  sustained  the  persons  of  all  the 
elect,  in  his  dying  and  rising  again  ;  that  they  were  so 
comprehended  in,  and  accounted  one  with  him,  as  to  have 
died  in  his  death,  been  buried  in  his  burial,  and  raised 
again  in  his  resurrection."*  This  I  take  to  be  the  true 
principle  of  interpretation  for  the  whole  context  of  the 
passage  in  Rom.  vi.  But  that  this  blessed  truth,  (with 
which,  as  the  same  writer  justly  observes,  the  scriptures 
abound,)  is  "signified  to  believers  in  their  baptism, 
wherein  the  death,  burial,  and  resurrection  of  Christ  are 
re-acted,  in  a  figure,  upon  their  own  persons," — the  lan- 
guage employed  does  not  seem,  either  necessarily  or  natu- 
rally, to  imply. 

To  be  "  baptized  into  Christ"  is  to  be  baptized  into 
the  faith  of  him  as  the  Messiah  ; — into  the  faith  of  his  di- 
vine mission,  character,  and  work.  To  be  "  baptized  in- 
to his  death"  is  to  be  baptized  into  the  faith  of  death,  in 
the  view  of  which  the  gospel  gives  of  it,  as  the  death  of  a 
surety  or  substitute,  making  atonement  for  the  sins  of 
those  for  whom  he  died. — Now,  by  being  thus  "  baptized 
into  his  death,  says  the  apostle,  we  are  "  buried  with 
him."  The  simple  meaning  of  this  expression  evidently 
is,  that  by  being  baptized  into  the  faith  of  his  death,  as 
the  death  of  our  surety  and  substitute,  we  become  par- 
takers with  him  in  it.  When  the  apostle,  pursuing  his 
beautiful  illustration  of  the  spiritual  connection  of  believ- 
ers with  Christ,  and  the  practical  obligations  thence  aris- 
ing, says  in  the  eighth  verse,  "  Now  if  we  be  dead  with 
Christ,  we  believe  that  we  shall  also  live  with  him,"  he 
uses  a  phrase  of  equivalent  import  with  the  one  before  us. 
To  be  dead  with  Christ,  and  to  be  buried  with  Christ,  are 
the  same  thing.  The  latter  of  the  two  phrases  appears 
to  be  used  in  the  fourth  verse,  chiefly  for  the  sake  of 
completing  the  apostle's  figure.  As  it  was  necessary,  in 
order  to  Christ's  rising,  that  he  should  be  laid  in  the 
grave;  so,  in  the  figure,  it  is  necessary  that  we  should  be 
viewed  as  buried  with  him,  in  order  to  our  rising  with  him 
to  newness  of  life  : — 

"  Ours  the  cross,  the  grave,  the  skies." 

The  simple  meaning  is  this  : — Since,  in  our  being  bap- 

*  Commission,  page  140. 


118  SECTION    III. 

tized  into  Jesus  Christ,  we  were  baptized  into  his  drath,-~ 
into  the  faith  of  his  death  as  the  death  of  a  surety  ;  wc 
may  be  considered  as,  by  faith,  partaking  with  him  in  his 
death, — as  buried  with  him;  and  that,  with  the  special 
end  of  our  rising  w:th  him,  in  a  spiritual  resembl  nice  to 
his  resurrection,  and  "  walking  in  newness  of  life."  Now 
it  is  quite  obvious,  that  the  argument  of  the  apostle  has 
not  the  remotest  connection  with  the  mode  of  baptism. 
There  is  not  the  most  distant  occasion  for  the  supposition 
of  any  such  allusion,  in  order  to  render  the  passage  intel- 
ligible ;  nor  does  the  allusion,  when  supposed,  impart  to 
it  any  addition  of  force  or  propriety.  The  meaning  does 
not,  in  the  least  degree,  depend  on  the  manner  of  per- 
forming the  ceremony  :  it  turns  entirely  on  its  being  bap- 
tism into  Christ's  death.  Provided  it  was  this,  it  makes 
not  the  smallest  differeiice  to  the  apostle's  statement,  or 
argument,  or  conclusion,  whether  we  suppose  it  to  have 
been  by  immersion,  by  pouring,  or  by  sprinkling. 

The  same  observations  apply,  with  at  least  equal,  if  not 
greater  force,  to  the  parallel  passage — Col.  ii.  12.  Be- 
lievers are  there  said  to  be  "risen  as  well  as  buried  with 
Christ  in  baptism." — They  were  not  baptized  into  the 
faith  of  Christ's  death  alone,  as  the  death  of  their  surety  ; 
they  were  baptized  also  into  the  faith  of  his  resurrection, 
as  the  resurrection  of  their  surety.  And  as,  by  the  form- 
er, they  became,  in  virtue  of  their  connection  with  him 
as  a  surety,  partakers  with  him  in  his  death  ;  so,  by  the 
latter,  they  became,  in  the  same  way,  partakers  with  him 
also  in  his  resurrection.  Being  baptized  into  the  faith 
of  both,  they  had,  by  faith,  fellowship  or  union  with  him 
in  both.  How  is  it,  accordingly,  that  they  are  said  to 
be  "  risen  with  him  ?"  It  is  "  through  the  faith  of  the 
operation  of  God  who  raised  him  from  the  dead;"  that 
is,  through  the  faith  of  his  resurrection,  effected  by  the 
operation,  or  mighty  power,  of  God. — Their  being  "  risen 
with  him  in  baptism"  does  not,  therefore,  refer  to  any 
emblematic  representation  of  a  resurrection  in  the  mode 
of  the  ordinance  ;  but  to  their  being  one  with  him  in 
his  resurrection,  through  faith  in  him  as  the  surety  of 
sinners.      And    in    this   view  they  might,  with   perfect 


SECTION    III.  119 

propriety,  be  said  to  be  risen  with  him  in  baptism,  what- 
ever was  the  mode  oi  its  administration,  provided  only  it 
was  baptism  into  the  fait  k  of  his  resurrection. 

It  has  indeed  been  alleged,  that,  in  whatever  sense  be- 
lievers are  said  to  be  buried  and  risen  with  Christ,  they 
could  not  be  represented  as  so  buried  and  risen  in  baptism, 
unless  there  were,  in  that  ordinance,  some  representation 
of  that  burial  and  resurrection. — I  observe  in  reply  :  1st. 
Although  the  expression  in  Col.  ii.  1*2.,  is  "  buried  with 
him  in  baptism"  {Ev  no  ^unTiOf.iazi ;)  yet  in  Rom.  vi.  4., 
it  is  different — "  buried  with  him  by  baptism  into  his 
death,"  (Aia  rov  (jamiafuaTog  eig  top  finvarov  aviov;) 
which  does  not  at  all  imply  any  such  similitude  in  the  ordi- 
nance, but  directs  the  attention  to  that  into  which  they 
were  baptized;  which,  indeed,  as  I  have  noticed,  is  the 
point  on  which  the  whole  reasoning  turns. — 2dly.  Al- 
though it  was,  strictly  speaking,  in  believing,  that  these 
converts  became  partakers  with  Christ  in  his  death  and 
resurrection  ;  yet  it  is  not  unusual  to  speak  of  things  as  tak- 
ing place  in  baptism  which  properly  took  place  by  Jaith, 
because  baptism  was  the  first  public  declaration  of  the 
faith  of  the  converts,  and  of  their  belonging  to  the  body 
of  Christ.  It  is  on  the  same  principle,  that  they  are  spo- 
ken of  as  in  baptism  "  washing  away  their  sins,"  and 
"  putting  on  Christ." — 3dly.  In  Rom.  vi..  the  language 
of  the  whole  passage  is  figurative.  The  same  principle 
of  interpretation,  according  to  which  the  expression  "bur- 
ied xoith  Christ"  is  explained  as  referring  to  the  represen- 
tation of  interment  by  the  immersion  of  the  body  under 
water,  should  lead  us  also  to  understand  the  phrase  which 
immediately  follows,  "planted  together  in  the  likeness  of 
his  death"  as  referring  to  an  emblematic  representation 
of  planting — which  accordingly  some  have  stretched  their 
fancy  to  make  out :  or  the  phrase  "  crucified  with  him," 
to  some  similar  exhibition  of  crucifixion. 

Being  myself  thoroughly  convinced,  that  the  signifi- 
cance and  appropriateness  ot  the  rite  arise  from  the 
cleansing  nature  of  the  element  employed,  and  not  from 
the  mode  of  its  application,  I  am  disposed  to  consider  the 
mode  as  of  comparatively  inferior  importance.  It  is  in 
the  application  of  water,  as  the  emblem  of  the  purifying 


120  SECTION    III. 

influence  of  the  Spirit  of  truth,  that  the  ordinance  prop- 
erly consists.  A  baptist  brother  may  smile  at  me  when  I 
say,  that  on  this  ground  I  have  no  hesitation  in  admitting 
immersion  to  be  valid  baptism  :  and  if  it  be  a  brotherly 
smile,  I  have  no  objection  to  return  it.  But  if  it  be  the 
smile  of  implied  derision,  which  if  turned  into  words, 
would  say — "  A  great  concession  truly  !  admit  immersion 
to  be  valid  baptism  !  why,  immersion  alone  is  baptism  : — 
it  is  the  only  scriptural  mode  ; — it  is  the  only  meaning  of 
the  original  word; — it  is  the  only  representation  of  the 
death,  and  burial,  and  resurrection  of  Christ:" — I  could 
return  it  on  quite  sufficient  grounds,  if  derision  were  a 
brotherly  feeling;  but  I  would  not  icish  to  do  it,  because 
Christian  charity  forbids  me. 

Although  it  is  somewhat  foreign  to  my  main  object,  to 
pursue  the  discussion  of  the  mode  to  any  great  length, 
yet  I  cannot  pass  it  over  without  a  few  remarks.  Others 
have  successfully  shown,  by  a  detail  of  learned  criticism, 
the  consistency  of  the  practice  of  paedobaptists  with  the 
usages  of  classical  Greek  writers.  My  present  remarks 
shall  be  for  the  unlearned  ;  being  designed  to  show,  that 
there  is  no  occasion  to  go  beyond  the  plain  intimations  of 
the  Bible  itself,  for  a  satisfactory  settlement  of  the  point 
in  dispute. 

Even  were  it  to  be  admitted,  that  immersion  is  the  origi- 
nal or  primary  import  of  the  word  baptism — (which  is  only 
the  Greek  word  Anglicised) — yet  every  one  at  all  versant 
in  languages  is  aware,  that  it  is  not  by  tracing  back  a  word 
to  its  earliest  etymology,  that  its  actual  meaning  is  to  be 
ascertained,  in  particular  applications  of  it,  at  subsequent 
periods  in  the  history  of  the  tongue  to  which  it  belongs. 
Even  in  our  own  language,  we  should  run  ourselves  into 
innumerable  mistakes  and  absurdities,  by  the  adoption  of 
such  a  test  of  the  import  of  terms.  The  sole  inquiry  ought 
to  be, — not,  what  is  the  strict,  original,  etymological  sense 
of  the  word  ;  but,  what  is  the  sense  in  ichich  it  is  used  by 
the  scripture  writers  ?  And  it  has  long  appeared  to  me, 
that  the  reading,  and  comparing  with  each  other,  of  such 
texts  as  the  following,  should  be  enough  to  satisfy  any 
candid  man,  that  sprinkling  and  pouring,  so  far  from  be- 
ing without  the  countenance  of  these  writers  in  their  use 


SECTION    III. 


121 


of  the  term,  are  uniformly  recognized  by  them,  in  their 
incidental  explanations  of  it,  as  its  true  and  proper  coun- 
terparts ;  and  should  therefore  lead  the  deriders  of  infant- 
sprinkling,  (as  even  the  least  of  our  opponents  have 
learned  from  their  superiors,  sneeringly  to  designate  our 
practice)  to  consider,  on  what  and  on  whom  their  con- 
tempt must  ultimately  fall. 

Mark  vii.  3,  4.  "  For  the  Pharisees,  and  all  the  Jews, 
except  they  wash  their  hands  oft  eat  not,  holding  the  tra- 
dition of  the  elders.  And  when  they  come  from  the  mar- 
ket, except  they  wash  they  eat  not.  And  many  other 
things  there  be,  which  they  have  received  to  hold,  as  the 
washing  (/jwrrr  robot's,  baptisms,)  of  cups  and  pots,  brazen 
vessels,  and  of  tables." — Do  our  brethren  really  believe, 
that  the  couches  on  which  ths  Jews  reclined  at  their  meals, 
— (which  are  meant  by  the  word  rendered  improperly  in 
the  latter  of  these  verses  tables)  were  immersed,  or  plung- 
ed entirely  under  water  ?  Is  this  likely  in  itself;  espe- 
cially where  water  was  seldom  so  abiii.dant  as  to  be  lav- 
ishly expended  ?  And  is  it  not  much  more  reasonable  to 
suppose,  that  in  adding  to  the  extent  of  the  law  of  purifi- 
cation, the  legal  mode  of  purification  should  still  be  re- 
tained ;  and  that  the  cleansing  was  similar  to  that  pre- 
scribed, Num.  xix.  18.  "  A  clean  person  shall  take  hys- 
sop and  dip  it  in  the  water,  and  sprinkle  it  upon  the  tent, 
and  upon  all  the  vessels?" — At  any  rate,  whatever  be 
supposed  as  to  the  "  pots,  and  cups,  and  brazen  vessels, " 
it  surely  requires  the  prejudice  of  system,  to  fancy  the 
immersion  of  the  beds  or  couches. 

In  Meb.  ix.  10.,  the  apostle  says  of  the  ancient  dispen- 
sation, that  it  "  stood  only  in  meats  and  drinks  and  diverse 
washings,  and  carnal  ordinances  " — The  word  rendered 
washings  is  (junTin^taru  (baptisms  ;)  under  which  are  cer- 
tainly to  be  included  all  the  various  modes  of  ceremonial 
purification,  or  clausing,  that  were  enjoined  under  the 
law.  The  principal  and  most  frequent  of  these  was 
sprinkling.  The  cases  in  which  the  bathing  of  the  bodjr 
was  prescribed  are  no  doubt  also  intended  ;  but  it  is 
enough  (or  my  purpose,  if  the  expression  is  admitted  to 
comprehend  other  modes  of  purifying. 

1  Cor.  x.  2.  "  They  were  all  baptized  into  Moses  in  the 
10 


122  SECTION   III. 

cloud  and  in  the  sea." — Are  our  brethren  not  sensible  of 
the  straining  that  is  necessary  to  make  out  immersion  bap- 
tism here? — of  the  absolute  ridiculousness  ol  the  conceit 
(1  cannot  view  it  any  other  light)  that  the  Israelites  were 
baptized,  by  having  the  cloud  over  them,  and  the  waters 
of  the  sea  on  either  side  of  them?  [  can  cot  help  the 
mind  that  has  brought  itself  to  fancy  this  quite  simple  and 
natural.  A  dry  baptism  !  without  the  contact  at  ail  of 
the  baptismal  element,  in  any  way  !  Would  our  brethren 
consider  a  man  duly  baptized,  by  his  being  placed  between 
two  cisterns  of  water,  with  a  third  over  his  head  ? 

When  the  baptism  of  the  iloly  Spirit,  signified  by  bap- 
tism with  water,  is  spoken  of,  it  is  almost  invariably  asso- 
ciated with  the  idea  of  pouring  out,  or  effusion; — and  it 
is  surely  not  unreasonable  to  conclude,  that  there  should 
be  a  correspondence  between  the  emblematic  rite  and  that 
which  it   represents;   nor    is  the   charge  of  inconsiderate 
presumption  destitute  of  ground,    against  those    who   in- 
dulge themselves  in  ridicule  and  mockery   of  this  corres- 
pondence.— As  a   specimen  of  the  language  of  the  scrip- 
tures, let.  the  following  passages  suffice.      Isa.  xliv.  3.   "  I 
will  pour  writer  on    him  that  is  thirsty,   and  floods  on  the 
dry   ground  .   I    will   pour  my  Spirit  upon  thy  seed,  and 
my  blessing  upon  thine  offspring  :" — Joel  ii.  28,  29.  quot- 
ed   as   fulfilled,  Acts  ii.  17,  13.     "  It  shall  come   to   pass 
afterward,  that   I    will  pour   oi.t  my  Spirit  upon  all  flesh, 
and  your  sons   and  your  daughters  shall  prophesy,   your 
old  men  shall  dream  dreams,  and  your  young  men  shall  see 
visions:   and  also  upon  the    servants  and  upon  the   hand- 
maidens in  those  days  will  I  pour  out  my  Spirit  :  '     Acts 
ii.  31.     "  Therefore,  being  by  the  right  hand  of  God  ex- 
alted, and    having   recened  of  the   Father  the  promise  of 
the    Holy  Ghost,    he    hath  skid  forth  (iuy/£,  poured  out) 
this,  which   ye  now   see  and  hear:" — Tit.  lii.  5,  6.     Not 
by    works  of  righteousness  which  we  have  done,  but  ac- 
cording to  his  mercy  he  saved  us,    by  the   washing  of  re- 
generation   and   renewing  of  the    Holy   Ghost,  which  he 
shed  (iiiyti,  poured  out)  on  us  abundantly,  through  Jesus 
Christ  our  Saviour." 

That  this  pouring  nut  of   the    Spirit  was  the  same  as 
the  baptism  of  the  Spirit,  we  have  an  authority  which  my 


SECTION    III.  123 

reader,  I  hope,  will  deem  satisfactory — the  express  and 
pointed  testimony  of  an  inspire!  apostle.  In  giving  his 
account  of  the  effect  of  his  mission  to  the  household  of 
Cornelius,  I'eter  says,  "  And  as  I  beg>n  to  speak,  the  Ho- 
ly Ghost  felt  on  thrm,  as  on  us  at  the  beginning.  Then 
remembered  I  the  word  of  the  I^ord,  how  that  he  said, 
John  indeed  baptized  with  water,  but  ye  shall  be  baptized 
with  the  Holy  Ghost:'  Acts  xi.  15,  16.  That  the  Spirit 
falling  upon  these  converts,  is  equivalent  to  his  being 
poured  out  upon  them,  appears  from  comparing  this  ac- 
count of  Peter  with  the  narrative  itself  of  the  event  :  As 
Peter  began  to  speak,  the  Holy  Ghost  fell  on  all  them  who 
heard  I  lie  word.  And  they  of  the  circumcision  were  as- 
tonished, as  many  as  came  with  Peter,  because  that  on 
the  Gentiles  also  was  pound  out  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Ghost." — Look,  then,  reader,  at  Peter's  words.  The  Ho- 
ly Spirit  was  poured  out,  and  Peter  called  to  mind  the 
promise,  which  cf  course  he  considered  as  being  then 
fulfilled — "Ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Spirit." 
According  to  Peter,  then,  baptism  was  effected  by  pouring 
out.  Till  better  authority  be  produced^  I  desire  to  bow 
to  this.  The  argument,  I  am  aware,  is  very  simple,  and 
may  be  contemned  as  being  an  unlearned  one  ; — but  my 
very  object  is  to  show,  that  learning  is  not  necessary  to 
determine  the  question,  in  what,  sense  a  writer  uses  a 
particular  woid,  when  that  writer  himself  favors  us  with 
his  own  explanation.  This  is  done  here,  in  terms  as  ex- 
plicit as  it  is  possible  to  devise.  And  when  Peter  himself 
tells  me  that  he  did  consider  effusion  as  baptism,  it  is  not 
the  learning  of  all  the  etymologists  in  Europe  that  will 
persuade  me,  against  his  own  word,  that  it  was  impossible 
he  should. 

I  have  said,  it  is  surely  not  unreasonable  to  suppose, 
that  baptism  with  water,  which  represents  baptism  with 
the  Spirit,  should  bear  an  analogy  to  it  in  this  particu- 
lar. The  language,  accordingly,  of  the  subsequent  part 
of  the  same  narrative,  most  naturally  leads  to  the  con- 
clusion, (so  naturally,  indeed,  that  T  might  almost  say  it 
directly  expresses  it,)  that  such  was  the  fact, — that  the 
converts,  on  whom  the  Spirit  had  fallen,  were  not  con- 
ducted to   a  river,   or  elsewhere,   where   they  might   be 


124  SECTION  III. 

conveniently  immersed,  but  that  water  was  brought,  and 
that  they  were  baptized  immediately.  uj;on  the  spot.  Pe- 
ter said,  "  Who  can  forbid  water,  that  these  should  not  be 
baptized  ?"  an  expression  which  the  ear  itself  of  every 
candid  reader  at  once  interprets  to  his  mind,  as  intima- 
ting the  apostle's  desire  that  water  should  be  brought. 
All  assenting,  he  commanded  them  to  he  "  baptized  in 
the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus."  It  was  immediately  done; 
and  they  "  prayed  him  to  tarry  with  them  certain  days." 

I  only  further  remark,  that  the  same  authority,  name- 
ly, that  of  scripture  itself,  warrants  me  so  explicitly,  to 
consider  sprinkling,  or  pouring,  as  sufficiently  expressive 
of  washing  or  cleansing  from  pollution,  that  I  have  no  ref- 
erence to  pay  to  any  affirmations  to  the  contrary.  Let 
the  following  examples  be  attended  to: — Ezek.  xxxvi.  25. 
"  Then  will  I  sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you,  and  ye  shall 
be  clean  ;  from  all  your  filthiness  and  from  all  your  idols 
will  I  cleanse  you."  Sprinkling  is  here  represented  as 
having  the  effect  of  cleansing: — Psal.  li.  7.  "  Purge  me 
with  hyssop,  and  7  shall  be  clean;  wash  me,  and  1  shall 
be  whiter  than  snow.  "  The  hyssop  was  used  for  sprink- 
ling either  water  or  blood,  or  both,  upon  the  person  to  be 
ceremonially  purified  ;  so  that  here  too  sprinkling  is  held 
sufficient  for  cleaning. — So  it  is  also  in  Heb.  ix.  13,  14. 
u  For  if  the  blood  of  bulls  and  of  goats,  and  the  ashes  of 
an  heifer,  sprinkling  the  unclean,  sanctifieth  to  the  puri- 
fying (y.adoicjoiTjTu)  of  the  flesh;  how  much  more  shall 
the  blood  of  Christ,  who,  through  the  eternal  Spirit,  of- 
fered himself  without  spot  unto  God,  purge"  (-/Mdacjiei, 
purify  or  cleanse)  "  your  conscience  from  dead  works,  to 
serve  the  living  God  ?"  The  blood  of  Christ  is,  with  the 
same  allusion  to  its  cleansing  virtue  called  the  blood  of 
sprinkling. — Isa.  lii.  15.  So  shall  he  sprinkle  many  na- 
tions ."  that  is,  "  with  his  atoning  blood,  and  by  the 
pouringf  out  of  his  Spirit  as  purifying  water  ;  of  which," 
(adds  Mr.  Scott,  and  it  belongs  to  our  baptist  brethren  to 
show  how  unreasonably)  "  baptism  should  be  the  outward 
and  visible  sign." — Surely  such  passages  of  scripture  as 
these  ought  at  least  to  rescue  sprinkling  and  pouring  from 
the  misphiced  and  pitiful  ridicule,  which  has  so  often 
been  directed  against  them  by  the  abettors  of  immersion. 


SECTION  III.  125 

It  is,  I  repeat,  in  the  application  of  water  as  a  cleansing 
clement,  that  the  appropriateness  of  the  rite  consists. 
Were  this  admitted,  1  should  not  be  disposed,  as  I  have 
before  hinted,  to  consider  the  mode  of  its  application  as 
essen'ial  to  the  validity  of  the  ordinance.  I  must,  how- 
ever, declare  my  conviction,  that,  whilst  I  have  produced 
decisive  instances  of  baptism,  in  the  phraseology  of  the 
New  Testament,  being  equivalent  to  tffusion,  I  have  never 
yet  seen  an  instance  established,  of  its  necessarily  or  cer- 
tainly signifying  immersion*  I  have  already  said,  that  it 
is  not  by  etymology,  but  by  usage,  that  this  point  can  be 
fairly  determined  ;  and  the  attempts  made  to  determine 
it  by  usage,  from  the  New  Testament,  in  favor  of  immer- 
sion, have  ever  appeared  to  me  entire  failures.  Two  or 
three  brief  remarks  shall  suffice  on  some  of  the  modes  of 
reasoning. 

The  argument  from  etymology  has  been  supported  by 
the  observation,  that,  in  most  of  its  occurrences,  the  verb 
is  connected  with  the  preposition  EN — tv  vdoscv, — tv 
jivtvpazt  ayio), — &c. — in  water, — in  the  Holy  Spirit, 
&,c. — It  is  truly  surprising,  that  so  much  stress  should  be 
laid  on  the  frequently  vague  import  of  a  Greek  preposi- 
tion. This  preposition  (ev)  is  necessarily  rendered  with 
in  many  of  its  occurrences.  Of  this  many  instances 
might  be  quoted.  I  shall  content  myself  with  one,  be- 
cause it  bears  an  immediate  relation  to  the  present  sub- 
ject. In  Heb.  ix.  22.  it  is  said,  "  almost  all  things  are  by 
the  law  purged  (or  purified  **9*§i£st*/)  with  blood  (EN^aT/) 
and  without  shedding  of  blood  is  no  remission." — Now 
these  purification^  with  blood  were  effected  by  sprinkling ; 
and  to  render  the  phrase  here  "  in  blood,"  would  be  ab- 
surb.  Our  baptist  friends  are  sufficiently  aware  of  this 
frequent  signification  of  the  preposition.  And  yet,  this 
being  the  case,  the  use  of  it  in  the  present  instance  de- 
termines nothing ;  because,  before  it  can  be  made  out  that 
the  preposition  should  be  rendered  in  it  must  be  previous- 
ly proved  that  the  verb  signifies  exclusively  to  immerse — 

*The  reader  will  therefore  perceive,  that  when  I  say  I  can  admit  immer- 
sion to  be  valid  baptism,  I  do  not  mean  that  it  has  been  administered  ac- 
cording- to  the  mode  practised  by  the  apostle-*.  All  that  I  mean  is,  that  if 
baptism  has  already  been  administered  by  immersion.  I  should  not  reckon 
it  necessary  to  administer  it  again  by  effusion  or  sprinkling. 

*10 


126  SECTION  III. 

the  propriety  of  the  one  translation  obviously  depending 
upon  the  establishment  of  the  other. — Nor  is  this  all. 
We  have,  in  the  very  case  before  us,  the  clearest  evidence 
of  the  fallacy  of  the  criticism  :  for,  as  we  have  seen  a  lit- 
tle ago, the  promise  "Ye  shall  be  baptized  EN  muipxTi  uyn," 
was  verified  by  the  pouring  out  of  this  Spirit  upon  the 
disciples. — To  be  immersed,  or  plunged,  in  the  Holy 
Ghost  and  in  fire,  are  expressions  not  merely  harsh  and 
grating  to  the  ear, — 1  should  not  rest  much  upon  that,  be- 
cause there  are  few  or  no  modes  of  speech,  to  which  both 
the  ear  and  the  mind  may  not,  by  custom,  become  habitu- 
ated and  reconciled  ; — but  they  are  expressions  in  direct 
opposition  to  the  invariable  representations  of  scripture 
respecting  the  gift  of  the  spirit. — Mr.  Cox  asks,  "  What 
reason  can  be  assigned,  if  pouring  be  the  proper  method 
of  administering  baptism,  for  the  constant  use  of  a  term 
in  the  New  Testament,  which,  every  critic  admits,  signi- 
fies immersion,  and  which  even  Mr.  Ewing  allows  to 
mean  immersion  as  much  as  pouring;  and  the  entire 
omission  of  all  those  Greek  words  which  contain,  in  their 
primary,  or  general  application,  the  sense  of  effusion  or 
pouring?  Either  of  the  following  verbs/'  says  he,  "  might 
have  answered  the  purpose;  0ikxu>  jacio,  ix^ta  eflfundo,, 
imx'^cD  infundo>  iK^vvue  eflfundo,  mraxu*  eflfundo,  irgoo-%ui  ad- 
fundo :  they  are  moreover  all  made  use  of  in  the  writings 
of  the  apostles,  and  yet  they  are  never  applied  to  in  the 
ordinance  of  baptism.  The  same  may  be  affirmed  of 
£xvn£w  I  sprinkle."* — But  this  is  either  inconsiderate,  or 
uncandid.  It  is  true,  that  such  terms  do  not  happen  to 
be  used  with  immediate  application  to  the  ordinance  of 
baptism,  because  ,/2«t<t/£«  is  the  appropriate  term,  the  vox 
signata,  for  that  ordinance.  But  to  insinuate  that  they 
are  never  used  as  equivalent  to  baptism,  is  to  insinuate 
what  is  most  untrue.  Either  «£«»  or  <k£w»  (to  pour 
out)  is  uniformly  employed,  as  has  been  already  no- 
ticed, to  express  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit.  They  on 
whom  the  Spirit  teas  poured  out  are  most  explicitly  af- 
firmed to  have  been  baptized  ivith  the  Spirit.  There  is 
no  getting  over  this.  The  /Sajrwsr^*  is  effected  by  the 
nc%vTt{.  Tt  will  never  be  alledged  that  *#/?*  signifies  tcy 
*  Cox  0:1  Baptism,  p.  47. 


SECTION   III,  127 

immerse,  yet  the  apostle  Peter  declares  the  vi%v:rts  to  have 
been  the  accomplishment  of  the  promise,  &i7r<rw6jj<r&r6e. — 
As  to  the  verb  g«m£«,  1  shall  only  observe,  that  amongst 
the  "  dners  washings"  {{h.wrmy.an*.,  baptisms)  of  the  old 
dispensation,  referred  to  Heb.  ix.  10.  must  surely  be  in- 
cluded all  the  various  modes  of  Jewish  purification,  and 
consequently  the  gnw/uuvnt,  or  sprinklings,  which  were 
the  most  numerous.  The  passages,  moreover,  formerly 
cited,  show,  that,  in  scripture  phraseology,  sprinkling  is 
equivalent  to  washing  or  cleansing. 

Equally  uncertain,  as  to  the  conclusion  deducible  from 
them,  are  the  expressions,  that  John  baptized  "mi  Jor- 
dan," "  in  the  river  of  Jordan" — iV  to>  U^uvx— «v  t«  ie$<f*yj» 
7ror*.y.a> : — Matth.  iii.  6.  Mark  i.  5.  Such  expressions  are 
inconclusive,  for  this  obvious  reason,  that  they  are  equally 
suitable,  on  the  supposition  of  pouring  having  been  the 
mode  of  baptism,  as  on  that  of  immersion.  Had  John 
stood  in  the  water,  however  shallow,  or  had  he  stood  in 
the  bed  of  the  river  at  the  water's  edge,  and  poured  the 
water  on  those  who  came  to  him  for  baptism, — the  histo- 
rian not  only  might  have  used  the  same  expression  with 
propriety,  but  could  hardly  have  used  another. — An  argu- 
ment, then,  is  brought  from  the  use  of  a  particular  prepo- 
sition, to  fix  the  verb  to  one  of  two  alleged  meanings  : — 
but  if  the  preposition  may  be  used  with  equal  propriety, 
whichsoever  of  the  meanings  be  affixed  to  the  verb,  it  is 
needless  to  say  that  the  use  of  it  determines  neither. — 
The  truth  is,  that  our  baptist  friends  have  their  own  sense 
of  the  verb  previously  fixed  in  their  minds  ;  and,  instead 
of  ascertaining  the  sense  of  the  verb  by  the  use  of  the 
preposition,  they  determine  the  sense  of  the  preposition 
from  its  connection  with  the  verb. 

This  will  be  further  evident,  from  the  sense  affixed  by 
some  of  them  to  another  preposition,  on  one  occasion  at 
least  used  in  connection  with /Wn^a, — the  preposition  \ns. 
It  is  said,  Mark  i.  9.  "  Jesus  came  from  Nazareth  of 
Galilee,  and  was  baptized  of  John,"  ejs  rev  'kgdayav.  This, 
is,  by  some  antipaedobaptists,  translated  into  Jordan  ;  and 
is  considered  as  settling  the  point,  because  being  "  bap- 
tized to  or  towards  Jordan"  is  nonsense.  And  non- 
sense no  doubt  it  is.      But  the  remark  settles  no  point 


128  SECTION  III. 

whatever,  unless  it  be  the  inconsideration  or  prejudice  of 
such  critics.  They  surely  know,  that,  in  such  connec- 
tions «s  not  unusually  has  the  signification  of  at.  So  it  is 
correctly  rendered  in  Acts  viii.  40.  "  Philip  was  found 
at  Azotus."  Acts  xxv.  J5.  "  About  whom,  when  1  was 
at  Jerusalem,"  &c. ;  and  in  other  places.  The  phrase 
does  not  signify  that  the  persons  baptized  were  plunged 
«?  tov  lcgfxvM  into  the  Jordan  ;  but  simply  that  the  baptized 
and  the  baptizer  were  at,  or,  if  you  will,  in  Jordan,  when 
the  rite  was  administered.  Nothing  is  determinately  af- 
firmed by  it  of  the  mode  of  its  administration. — If  it  be 
alledged,  that  in  the  instances  quoted  as  examples  of  u; 
signifying  at,  the  persons  were  at  the  places  mentioned 
certainly  so  as  to  be  in  them  ; — granting  the  truth  of  the 
criticism,  the  utmost  that  can  be  deduced  from  it  is  what 
I  have  just  mentioned,  that  the  parties  were  in  Jordan 
when  the  ceremony  was  performed.  But  the  phrase 
might  be  used  with  perfect  propriety  upon  the  supposition 
of  their  having  been  only  on  the  margin  or  bank  of  the 
river. 

"In  remarking  upon  Matth.  iii.  16."  says  Mr.  Cox, 
Mr.  Ewing  expresses  himself  thus: — "  I  suppose  no  man 
upon  earth  who  can  read  tmtk  wbvc  -xrro  tov  v£a.<ros,  imagines  it 
to  be  any  thing  else  than  '  he  went  up  straightway  from 
the  water.'  It  is  presumable,  notwithstanding  the  hos- 
tility against  Dr.  Campbell,  that  he  was  at  least  able  to 
read  the  words  recited  ;  and  yet  he  imagined  them  to 
mean  '  he  no  sooner  arose  out  of  the  water.'  Vossius, 
Venema,  Doddridge,  and  a  thousand  others,  were  cer- 
tainly able  to  read  these  words,  and  yet  they  imagined 
them  to  have  a  meaning  different  from  the  interpretation 
of  our  Glasgow  friend,  and  conformable  to  that  of  the 
Principal  of  Marischall  College,  and  of  almost  all  the 
critics,  both  baptist  and  paedobaptist."* 

Now  the  man  who  names  three  critics,  and  refers  to 
the  rest  by  thousands,  should  be  sure  of  his  correctness 
at  least  in  his  small  sample.  1  happen  not  to  have  Vos- 
sius and  Venema  by  me  ;  but  I  have  just  looked  into 
Doddridge,  and  find  his  translation  in  harmony,  not  with 

*  Page  87. 


SECTION    III.  129 

Dr.  Campbell's,  but  with  Mr.  Ewing's!*  It  is — "  And 
after  Jesus  was  baptized,  as  soon  as  he  ascended  out  of 
the  water  to  the  bank  of  Jordan."  This  needs  no  com- 
ment. Are  we  to  consider  this  as  a  specimen  of  the  care 
of  Mr.  Cox  in  consulting  his  authorities,  or  of  his  candor 
and  correctness  in  referring  to  them? — It  is  indeed  quite 
unnecessary  to  go  through  a  thousand  critics,  to  asceitain 
the  meaning  of  the  phrases  *«t*#mw»  m  TowTwg,  and  avx&tm» 
iltto  (or  m)  vcquf*TQs  We  need  not  go  beyond  the  New 
Testament,  for  in  it  we  have  the  clearest  and  mo.«t  ex- 
plicit proof  that  they  are  phrases  totally  unconnected  with 
the  act  of  baptizing.  In  Acts  viii.  38,39.  it  is  said, 
"  They  went  down  both  into  the  water,  both  Philip  and 
the  Eunuch,  and  he  baptized  him.  And  when  they  were 
come  up  out  of  the  water,  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  caught 
away  Philip,  that  the  Eunuch  saw  him  no  more." — Noth- 
ing can  be  clearer  than  t his.  The  act  of  baptizing  is 
something  quite  distinct  from  either  the  going  down  into 
the  water,  or  the  corning  up  out  of  it.  If  these  two  phra- 
ses had  any  reference  at  all  to  the  mode  of  baptism,  it 
would  follow,  that  Philip  was  immersed  under  the  water, 
and  emerged  out  of  it,  as  well  as  the  Eunuch  ;  which  no 
one  supposes.  The  plain  meaning  is,  that  Philip  and  the 
Eunuch  descended  together  from  the  chariot  to,  or  if  you 
will  into  the  water  ;  that,  when  they  had  so  descended, 
Philip  baptized  the  Eunuch,  but  in  what  way,  not  a  hint 
is  given  ;  and  that,  this  being  done,  they  ascended  togeth- 
er again  out  of,  or  from,  the  water.  Both  went  down,  and 
both  came  up,  but  one  only  was  baptized.   I  cannot  imagine 

*  I  have  been  lold  ihat  this  is  not  correct,  inasmuch  as  Doddridge  renders 
the  preposition  as  Dr.  Campbell  does,  out  of—  noi  as  Mr.  Ewinnr  does,  from. 
But  ihe  objection  is  that  of  superficial  readers.  Mr.  Cox's  affirmation  is, 
that  Vossius.  V  enema,  and  Doddridge  imagined  the  words — hot  die  prepo- 
sition by  itself,  hut  the  whole  phrase — to  "havi;  a  mkaning''  different 
from  the  interpretation  of  Mr.  Ewing,  and  conformable  to  dial  ot  Dr  Camp- 
bell.— Now  ii  is  of  the  meaning,  accordingly,  that  1  speak,  in  denying  the 
accuracy  of  the  statement  The  mere  verbal  rendering  ol  the  preposition 
is  nothing.  Dr.  Campbell's  translation  is  a  baptist  <  ne,  evidently  repre- 
senting the  phrase  as  signifying  emerging  fiim  under  the  water, — and  it  is 
astonishing  that  he  or  any  critic  should  have  pvpt  so  understood  it— Dr. 
Doddridge's  translation,  is  as  lar  as  Mr.  Ewing's  from  being  in  harmony 
with  this.  The  only  diffierei.ee  is,  that  Mr.  Ewi.ig's  does  not  directly  con- 
vey the  idea— (though  neither  does  it  exclude  it)  of  ih<-  person  baptized 
Laving  been  standing  ta  tlie  water  when  the  rite  was  administered,  which 
Dr.  Doddridge's  does. 


130  SECTION    III. 

that  our  baptist  friends  should  not  perceive,  how  entirely 
the  plain  statement  of  the  historian,  in  this  passage,  sets 
aside  the  whole  of  their  argument  derived  from  ihe  modes 
of  expression  employed — going  flown  into  and  coming  up 
out  of,  the  water  ;  the  one  being  so  clearly  previous,  and 
the  other  subsequent,  to  the  act  of  baptizing. — I  partake 
with  Mr.  Ewiug  in  his  astonishment  that  any  man  should 
ever  have  thought  otherwise: — and  1  think  I  may  add, 
that  a  baptist  should  ever  have  thought  otherwise  is 
"passing  strange."  I  have  been  accustomed  to  understand 
that  our  friends  consider  the  subject  or  recipient  of  the 
ordinance  as  passive, — not  going  down  under  the  water, 
and  coming  up  out  of  it,  himself,  but  being  laid  under  it, 
and  raised  out  of  it,  by  another.  But  the  **«&>  and  the 
*vt&  express  actions  of  the  baptized  person  himself,  and 
are  quite  distinct  from  his  being  baptized. 

I  have  dwelt  a  great  deal  longer  on  the  subject  of  the 
mode  of  baptism  than  was  my  original  intention.  The 
remarks  made  are  intended  to  show,  from  the  plain  state- 
ments of  the  New  Testament  itself,  that  baptism  was 
performed  by  sprinkling  or  pouring,  and  that  there  is  no 
necessity  for  any  learned  appeal  to  other  authorities.  This 
appeal  has  been  made  by  psedobaptists,  and  made,  in  my 
judgment,  with  success.  They  do  not  deny,  that  the 
verbs  @x7rrm  and  fi*7rnfa  signify  to  dip  or  immerse  ;  but  they 
do  deny,  that  this  is  their  only  signification,  and  that  it  is 
their  signification  when  they  are  used  by  the  sacred  wri- 
ters. In  insisting  that  immersion  is  the  sole  signification 
of  the  verbs,  baptists  appear  to  me  to  discover  a  lamenta- 
ble deficiency  of  critical  candor  ;  to  be  much  more  inge- 
nious than  ingenuous  ;  and  sometimes,  without  perceiving 
it,  to  employ  a  sophistry,  of  which  the  conclusions,  even 
if  they  were  sound,  are  nothing  to  their  purpose. — For 
example:  Mr.  Cox  is  somewhat  testy  with  Mr.  Ewing  for 
referring  to  the  use  of  0xm»  in  application  to  Nebuchad- 
nezzar, Dan.  iv.  33.  "  His  body  was  wet  (or  wetted) 
"  with  the  dew  of  heaven."  This  is  at  least  the  twentieth 
time,  Mr.  Cox  alleges,  that  this  instance  has  been  produc- 
ed in  the  controversy.  But  the  question  is,  not  how  often 
it  has  been  produced,  but  how  often  it  has  been  refuted. 
If  it   has  not  been  fairly  met  and  set  aside,  it  is  not  fre« 


SECTION   nr.  131 

quency  of  repetition  that  will  deprive  it  of  its  force. 
There  is  no  term  of  prescription  that  changes  truth  into 
falsehood  :  or  in  the  course  of  which  an  argument  becomes 
weak,  that  once  had  strength.  It  is  not  repetition  for 
twenty  times,  nor  lor  twenty  times  twenty,  that  can  ever  im- 
pair it.  On  the  contrary,  the  longer  it  stands  unrepelled,  it 
gets  stronger  and  stronger. — Let  us  see,  then,  what  Mr. 
Cox  makes  of  this  case.  He  thinks  the  ordinary  reply  sat- 
isfactory, "  That  a  body  exposed  to  eastern  dews  would  be 
as  wet  as  if  plunged  in  water  :"  but  considering  the  passage 
as  "  meriting  a  little  more  detailed  explanation,"  he  goes 
on  to  observe  : — "  The  verb  here  is  used  in  the  passive 
voice,  in  the  second  aorist,  and  the  indicative  mood,  imply- 
ing consequently  that  the  action  was  past  and  indefinite  as 
to  time.  It  does  not  imply  the  manner  in  which  the  effect 
was  produced,  but  the  effect  itself;  not  the  mode  by  which 
the  body  of  the  king  was  wetted,  but  its  condition,  as  re- 
sulting from  exposure  to  the  dews  of  heaven.  Suppose, 
by  way  of  illustration,  we  select  another  word,  and  put 
it  into  the  same  voice  and  tense  ;  as,  tfa*fa  urn  aw ;  'he 
was  hurt  by  you.'  It  is  obvious,  that  this  representation 
might  refer  to  an  injury  done  long  ago,  and  would 
predicate  nothing  of  the  manner  in  which  it  was  inflict- 
ed :  it  simply  expresses  the  fact  and  the  condition  of  in- 
jury which  resulted."* — Now  what  is  the  amount  of  all 
this?  Twenty  times  twenty  have  we  poor  psedobaptists 
been  told,  that  there  is  no  room  for  reasoning,  that  the 
idea  of  immersion  is  in  the  very  words  Qu.7rTu>  and  fiim^u- 
that  immersion  baptism  is  consequently  a  tautology,  and 
baptism  by  pouring  a  contradiction.  And  yet  here,  on 
Mr.  Cox's  own  showing,  is  an  instance,  in  which  B-ivru 
"predicates  nothing  of  the  manner."  It  does  not  denote 
immersion:  it  does  not  denote  being  wet  as  the  effect  of 
immersion! — Suppose  we  admit  that  it  signifies  the  state 
of  being  wet:  still  it  cannot  be  denied,  that  it  signifies 
this  state,  as  the  result,  not  of  plunging,  but  of  the  very 
gentlest  of  possible  affusions.  Ejijttu,  is  used,  and  expres- 
ses nothing  of  immersion — "  not  the  mode," — to  use  Mr. 
Cox's  own  words, — "  by  which  the  body  of  the  king  was 
wetted  !"     I  have  only  to  ask  Mr.  Cox,  whether  he  would 

*  Pages  40,  41. 


132  SECTION  III. 

consider  a  person  duly  baptized,  if  water  were  were  pour- 
ed upon  him  till  lie  were,  thoroughly  wetted.      If  he  would 
then  what  would  become  of  the  favorite  idea  of  the  em- 
blematic representation,  in    baptism,  of  a  burial  and  res- 
urrection ? 

Considering,  then,  as  I  have  repeatedly  mentioned,  the 
emblematic  import  of  baptism,  to  be  derived  from  the 
cleansing  or  purifying  nature  of  the  element  employed, 
not  from  the  mode  of  its  application,  although  affusion 
appears  to  have  the  decided  countenance  of  the  New 
Testament  scriptures  ;  I  proceed  to  illustrate  my  first  po- 
sition,— that  baptism,  and  that  baptism  administered  to 
infants,  is  a  standing  visible  memorial,  in  the  church, 
OF  important  truths. 

Baptism  itself,  whether  administered  to  infants  or  to 
adults,  is  a  permanent  remembrancer  of  guilt  and  pollu- 
tion,— of  the  consequent  necessity  of  cleansing  from  both, 
— and  of  the  means  provided  for  such  cleansing,  the  blood 
and  Spirit  of  Christ.  But,  on  these  general  views  of  the 
import  of  the  ordinance,  it  is  not  needful  for  me  to  dwell. 
There  are  additional  truths  brought  to  mind,  by  the  ad- 
ministration of  the  ordinance  to  children,  which  it  is  more 
to  my  present  purpose  to  notice. 

1.  Infant  baptism  contains  a  constant  memorial  of 
original  sin. — of  the  corruption  of  our  nature  being  not 
merely  contracted  but  inherent.  Every  time  it  is  admin- 
istered to  an  infant,  it  emblematically  reminds  all  who 
witness  it,  of  the  truth  expressed  by  the  Psalmist,  "Be- 
hold I  was  shapen  in  iniquity,  and  in  sin  did  my  mother 
conceive  me."  And  this  doctrine  of  original  corruption, 
of  which  infant  baptism  is  a  standing  practical  recogni- 
tion, is  one  of  fundamental  importance  ;  one,  I  am  satis- 
fied, to  inadequate  Conceptions  and  impressions  of  which 
may  be  traced  all  the  principal  perversions  of  the  gospel. 
In  proportion  to  its  relative  importance  in  the  system  of 
Divine  truth,  is  it  of  consequence  that  it  should  not  be  al- 
lowed to  slip  out  of  mind.  The  baptism  of  every  child 
brings  it  to  view,  and  impresses  it.  If  in  any  case  it 
should  be  otherwise,  the  fault  is  not  in  the  ordinance,  but 
in  the  power  of  custom,  and  in  the  stupidity  and  careless- 


SECTION  III.  133 

ness  of  spectators,  of  parents,  of  ministers.  It  teaches, 
very  simply,  but  very  significantly,  that,  even  from  the 
womb,  children  are  the  subjects  of  pollution  ;  that  they 
stand  in  need  of  a  participation  in  the  pardon  of  the  orig- 
inal apostasy,  and  of  purification  from  the  inherent  de- 
pravity of  their  nature,  in  order  to  their  entering  heaven, 
and  seeing  God. — The  impression  of  such  truths  is  of  the 
very  highest  importance,  especially  to  parents,  in  fixing 
the  principles  on  which  their  children  are  to  be  trained 
and  instructed,  and  in  directing  their  practical  application. 
Let  not  an  institution,  then,  which  serves  to  sustain  the 
remembrance  and  impression  of  such  truths,  be  repre- 
sented as  destitute  of  use. 

That  infant  baptism  contains  a  practical  testimony, 
from  the  Divine  author  of  the  institution,  to  the  necessity 
of  regeneration,  is  a  very  different  thing  from  its  being 
regeneration  itself,  or  invariably  accompanied  by  it  in  its 
infant  subject.  The  doctrine  of  baptismal  regeneration 
is,  in  many  respects,  as  pernicious  in  its  tendencies,  as  it  is 
absurd  on  principles  of  reason,  and  destitute  of  foundation 
in  scripture.  It  is  an  abuse,  for  which,  as  for  many  oth- 
ers, the  ordinance  itself  is  not  responsible.  The  only 
wonder  is,  that  any  man  of  common  sense  should  ever 
have  maintained  it. 

It  is  a  doctrine  of  the  church  of  Rome,  and  it  harmo- 
nizes well  with  the  innumerable  absurdities  of  that  anti- 
christian  communion.  It  is  contained  also  in  the  articles 
and  baptismal  service  of  the  church  of  England,  consti- 
tuting one  of  the  remnants  of  popery,  of  which  there  are 
too  many  in  the  constitution  and  ceremonies  of  our  Epis- 
copalean  Establishment.  I  am  aware,  indeed,  that,  on 
the  present  subject,  the  sense  in  which  the  terms  employed 
are  to  be  understood  has  been  the  ground  of  very  vehe- 
ment controversy  ;  but  their  simple  and  prima  facie  mean- 
ing i*,  without  question,  favorable  to  this  foolish  and 
mischievous  tenet. — But  when  Mr.  Birt  represents  "  the 
majority  of  predobaptists  in  general  as  believing  in  bap- 
tism! regeneration, ''  he  writes,  to  say  the  least  of  it  un- 
guardedly. He  ought  to  have  explained,  that,  in  making 
this  statement  he  included  papists  ;  of  whom,  I  am  well 
11 


134  SECTION   III. 

persuaded,  not  one  in  a  hundred  of  his  readers  would  ever 
think,  in  a  discussion  of  the  psedobaptist  controversy.* 

2.  Whilst  infant  baptism  reminds  us  of  the  humbling 
doctrine  of  original  depravity,  it  brings  before  our  minds 
a  truth  of  a  different  kind, — eminently  cheering  and  en- 
couraging,— namely,  that  little  children  are  not  incapable 
of  being  subjects  of  the  spiritual  kingdom  of  Jesus  Christ, 
and  participating  in  its  blessings. — I  need  not  set  about 
proving  this  ;  because  their  capability  is  granted  by  bap- 
tists themselves : — they  are  admitted  to  have  even  been 
pronounced  by  Christ  visible  subjects  of  his  kingdom. 
On  that  beautiful  passage,  Mark  x.  13 — 16.  Mr.  Maclean 
says,  "  Here  are  children  brought  to  Christ,  declared  of 
his  kingdom,  and  blessed,  and  thus  becoming  visible  sub- 
jects; yet  we  read  nothing  of  their  baptism."  With  the 
latter  clause  we  have  at  present  no  concern.  Far  be  it  from 
us  to  deny,  that  infants  may  be  acknowledged  to  be  of 
the  kingdom  of  God,  without  baptizing  them.''  Far  be  it 
from  us  to  pass  any  such  sentence  of  exclusion  against 
the  children  of  our  baptist  brethren,  however  much  we 
may  think  their  parents  mistaken.  We  do  not  consider 
the  outward  rite  as  thus  essential  to  salvation.  But  this 
we  say,  that  if  infants  are  capable  subjects  of  the  king- 
dom, and  are  pronounced  such  by  the  Lord  himself,  there 
is  surely  no  contradiction  or  incongruity  in  infant  baptism; 
that  is,  in  the  application  of  the  sign  to  those  who  are 
admitted  to  be  capable  of  the  thing  signified.  There  is 
certainly  nothing  in  this  that  can  warrant  the  scorn  and 
ridicule  with  which  it  has  been  assailed.  To  admit  an 
infant  to  be  a  "  visible  subject"  of  the  spiritual  kingdom, 
and  to  laugh  at  the  application  to  such  an  infant  of  the 
rite  which  signifies  the  peculiar  blessings  of  that  kingdom, 
and  talk  of  it  as  a  "  solemn  farce,"  does  not  seem  to  indi- 
cate great  consistency  of  thought  or  feeling. 

Let  it  not  be  said,  the  ground  of  ridicule  is,  that  infants 
are  incapable  of  that  faith,  which  the  New  Testament 
affirms  to  be  necessary  to  baptism,  and  of  which  baptism 
is  the  profession.     It  has  often  been  remarked,  and  it  has 

*  On  this  point,  the  reader  is  again  referred  to  my  Reply  to  the  Letter 
of  Mr.  Birt  of  Manchester — pages  14—17. 


SECTION    III.  135 

never  been  satisfactorily  answered,  that  this  mode  of  rea- 
soning if  valid  for  the  exclusion  of  infants  from  baptism, 
roust  be  equally  valid  for  their  exclusion  from  salvation. 
If  it  be  a  correct  syllogism — Believing  is  necessary  to 
baptism;  infants  are  incapable  of  believing:  therefore, 
no  infants  ought  to  be  baptized  ; — then  the  following  must 
be  correct  too — Believing  is  necessary  to  salvation  :  infants 
are  incapable  of  believing  :  therefore  infants  cannot  be 
saved. — Mr.  Cox  and  our  baptist  friends  may  be  angry  at 
the  twentieth  repetition  of  this  too.  But  it  is  simply  im- 
possible to  get  rid  of  the  second  conclusion,  if  the  first 
be  sound.  When  it  is  said,  "  lie  that  bclieoeth  and  is  bap- 
tized shall  be  saved  :  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  con- 
demned ;"  it  is  very  manifest,  from  the  nature  of  the 
thina,  and  from  the  charge  in  the  preceding  verse,  "  Go, 
preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature," — that  the  language 
refers  to  all  of  mankind  in  general  to  whom  the  gospel 
tould  be  preached  ;  that  is,  to  adults,  who  were  capable 
of  heating  and  understanding  what  was  said. — It  is  one 
of  those  cases,  in  which  baptists  themselves  are  constrain- 
ed to  have  recourse  to  the  ground  of  general  language. 
They  apply  this  principle  to  that  part  of  the  verse  that 
connects  salvation  with  faith,  because,  if  they  took  this 
strictly  and  universally,  it  would  inevitably  exclude  in- 
fants from  being  saved.  Have  we  not  reason,  then,  to 
complain  of  want  of  candor,  when  they  will  not  allow  the 
application  of  the  same  principle  of  interpretation  to  that 
clause  which  connects  baptism  with  faith  ?  The  connec- 
tion of  both  with  faith  is  stated  in  the  same  sentence,  in 
the  same  unqualified  terms;  and  the  same  principle  of 
explanation  which  warrants  or  condemns  the  one  infer- 
ence, must  equally  warrant  or  condemn  the  other. 

I  am  strongly  inclined  to  agree  with  those,  who  regard 
the  children  of  believers  in  the  light  of  disciples.  If 
their  parents  do  their  duty,  they  surely  are  such.  It  is 
quite  impossible  for  us  to  say,  how  soon  the  Holy  Spirit 
may  begin  his  secret  operations  in  the  soul  of  a  child,  un- 
der spiritual  training,  and  the  subject  of  believing  prayer. 
And  until  the  principles  which  are  instilled  into  the 
child's  mind  by  early  tuition,  recommended  by  a  godly 
example,  and   impressed   by  affectionate  and  faithful  ad- 


136  SECTION    III. 

monition,  are  either  avowedly  rejected,  or  are  shown  to 
be  professed  without  influence  on  the  heart  and  life, — 
how  can  we  be  entitled  to  say,  that  they  are  not  disciples? 
They  are  learners;  and,  as  far  as  we  can  judge,  lambs  of 
the  flock  of  the  "good  shepherd."  Indications  of  the 
contrary  may  present  themselves,  sometimes  earlier,  and 
sometimes  later  :  but  in  forming  our  estimate,  we  must 
make  allowances  for  the  peculiarities  of  childhood;  and 
not  foolishly  look  for  the  same  manifestation  of  the  power 
of  the  truth,  in  a  babe,  which  we  expect  in  a  full-grown 
man. 

On  the  question,  Are  the  baptized  children  of  believers 
church  members  1 — various  opinions  have  been  entertain- 
ed.    I  shall  state,  with  diffidence,  my  own. 

In  the  first  place  : — Baptism,  it  seems  evident  from  the 
New  Testament,  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  a  social  or  church 
ordinance.  It  did  not,  when  administered  to  adults,  in- 
troduce the  persons  baptized  to  connection  with  any  par- 
ticular church,  or  society  of  Christians.  They  were  sim- 
ply baptized  into  the  faith  of  Christ,  and  the  general  fel- 
lowship of  the  gospel.  We  have  one  clear  and  decisive 
exemplification  of  this,  in  the  case  of  the  eunuch  of  Ethi- 
opia. He  was  baptized  by  Philip  in  the  desert,  when  on 
a  journey,  where  there  was,  of  course,  no  church  ;  nor 
was  there  any,  where  the  eunuch  was  going.  His  bap- 
tism, therefore,  merely  recognized  him  as  a  professed  dis- 
ciple of  Jesus,  without  constituting  him  a  member  of  any 
particular  Christian  church.  And  so  it  was  with  others. 
The  converts,  when  baptized,  "joined  themselves, " 
wherever  they  had  an  opportunity,  "to  the  disciples;" 
but  their  baptism  was  administered  to  them,  simply  on  a 
profession  of  their  faith  ;  it  was  previous  to  such  union, 
and  formed  no  part  of  the  services  of  the  church,  with 
which  they  might  subsequently  unite. 

Secondly  :  This  being  the  case,  I  am  disposed  to  re- 
gard the  children  of  believers  as  disciples,  in  a  situation 
somewhat  analogous  to  the  one  described.  They  have 
been  baptized  ;  they  have  become  the  subjects  of  spiritual 
instruction, — of  "  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the 
Lord  ;"  and  they  are  in  training  for  the  full  fellowship  of 
the  people  of  God,  in  all  the  ordinances  of  his  house. — If, 


SECTION    III.  137 

on  growing  up,  they  do  not  hold  the  truth,  in  the  know- 
ledge of  which  they  have  been  instructed,  and  on  the 
principles  of  which  they  have  been  "  nurtured  and  ad- 
monished ;" — they  must  be  treated  accordingly; — they 
cannot  be  admitted  to  the  communion  of  the  church.  If, 
on  the  contrary,  they  "  abide  in  the  truth,"  "  holding  fast 
the  faithful  word  as  they  have  been  taught,"  then  they  are 
at  liberty  to  unite  in  fellowship,  wherever  their  judgment 
and  conscience,  on  examination  of  the  word  of  God,  may 
direct  them. — I  do  not  go  so  far  as  to  speak  of  their  be- 
ing separated  from  the  church  at  any  particular  age,  by  a 
formal  sentence  of  exclusion,  when  they  do  not  give  evi- 
dence of  the  reception  and  influence  of  the  gospel :  for 
the  reason  just  assigned,  that  their  baptism  has  not  consti- 
tuted them  properly  members  of  a  particular  society,  but 
only  disciples  of  Christ,  under  training  for  the  duties  and 
enjoyments  of  his  kingdom. — I  feel  confirmed  in  this  view 
of  the  case,  by  the  consideration,  that,  when  the  apostle 
Paul,  in  any  of  his  epistles,  addresses  himself  to  the  chil- 
dren of  the  believers, — whilst  by  so  doing  he  recognizes 
them  as  sustaining  a  relation  to  the  Christian  community, 
he  yet  does  not  commit  the  instruction  and  training  of 
them  to  the  church,  or  to  the  pastors  of  the  church,  but 
enjoins  it  upon  the  parents,  as  a  matter  as  yet  of  private 
and  domestic  concern.*     Eph.  vi.  1 — 4. 

3.  Before  proceeding  to  the  duties  which  this  ordinance 
brings  to  mind,  and  enforces,  I  must  notice  one  other 
highly  important  doctrine, — which  it  is  beautifully  cal- 
culated to  impress. — When  our  blessed  Redeemer  took 
the  little  children  in  his  arms  and  said,  "  Of  such  is  the 
kingdom  of  heaven," — he  added  solemnly  to  his  disci- 
ples, "  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  whosoever  shall  not  receive 
the  kingdom  of  God  as  a  little  child,  he  shall  not  enter 
therein." — When  an  infant  receives  the  blessings  of  the 
kingdom,  it  is  gratuitously  ;  not  as  the  reward  of  works 
of  righteousness  ;  not  in  the  exercise  of  high-minded  self- 

*J  was  not  aware,  when  I  was  led,  by  my  own  reflection,  to  adopt  the 
view  which  I  have  given  in  the  text  of  the  church-membership  of  the  chil- 
dren of  believers,  that  it  was  in  perfect  coincidence  with  that  given  by  the 
late  Dr.  Dwight,  in  the  157th  Sermon  of  his  Thkoi.ogy.  1  leave  the  read- 
er lo  consult  it  for  himself.  I  had  not  looked  into  the  work,  on  this  sub- 
ject, till  after  my  own  manuscript  was  ready  for  the  press. 

*1X 


138  SECTION    III. 

confidence.  So  must  it  be  with  you,  says  the  Saviour,  the 
Lord  of  the  kingdom.  You  must  be  "justified  freely  by 
the  grace  of  God  ,"  you  must  own  yourselves  undeserv- 
ing, and  receive  all  as  a  gift ;  whatever  you  have  done, 
you  must  come  for  the  blessings  of  my  kingdom,  as  if 
you  had  done  nothing,  and  receive  them  as  little  children. 
This  was  levelled  at  the  spiritual  pride  and  self-righteous- 
ness of  the  Pharisees,  against  which  he,  on  other  occa- 
sions also,  warns  his  disciples. — The  man  who  receives 
the  kingdom,  must  receive  it  on  the  same  terms  as  the 
child; — not  for  a  life  of  virtue, — not  for  his  faith,  his  re- 
pentance, his  obedience,  as  if  these  could  merit  any  thing 
from  God.  He  must,  as  to  his  title  to  its  blessings,  be 
divested  of  every  thing. — Now  this  is  one  of  the  essential 
articles  of  gospel  truth  ;  one  of  the  immutable  laws  of  the 
kingdom  ;  one  of  the  indispensable  characters  of  its  genu- 
ine subjects.  And  this  truth  is  constantly  exhibited, 
and  affectingly  impressed,  in  infant  baptism.  Every  time 
the  ordinance  is  administered  to  a  child,  all  who  witness 
it  may  be  considered  as  having  the  words  of  Christ  sym- 
bolically repeated  in  their  hearing — "  Verily  I  say  unto 
you,  whosoever  shall  not  receive  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
as  a  little  child,  he  shall  not  enter  therein."  It  is  not 
the  fault  of  the  ordinance,  but  of  its  administrator  and 
witnesses,  if  such  impressions  are  not  made. 

These  are  lessons  for  all, — lessons  of  essential  conse- 
quence ;  and  the  wisdom  of  God  has  not  only  revealed 
and  oft  repeated  them  in  his  word,  but  has  also  embodied 
them  in  emblematic  institutions,  which  serve  as  visible 
memorials  of  them  in  his  church,  to  all  generations. 
Such  are  both  baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper.  And  the 
former,  when,  according  to  God's  appointment,  adminis- 
tered to  infants,  contains  a  constantly  renewed  intimation 
of  the  delightful  truth,  that  whilst  they  are  the  subjects  of 
guilt,  and  pollution,  and  curse,  in  consequence  of  the 
original  apostasy,  they  are,  at  the  same  time,  through  Je- 
sus Christ,  partakers  of  the  blessings  of  the  kingdom  of 
mercy. 

II.  Having  considered  infant  baptism  as  a  memorial 
of  fundamental  truths,  let  me  now  proceed  to  view  it  as  a 
remembrancer  of  important  duties,  and  an  encouragement 
to  their  performance. 


SECTION    III.  139 

I  shall,  on  this  part  of  my  subject,  offer  a  few  brief 
remarks  on  the  duties  of  parents,  of  children,  and  of 
churches. 

1.  The  ordinance  is  inseparably  connected,  and  all 
Christian  parents  ought  so  to  regard  it,  with  the  incum- 
bent duty  of  "  bringing  up  their  children  in  the  nur- 
ture and  admonition  of  the  Lord."  If  this  connection  is 
lost  sight  of, — if  it  is  not  contemplated  at  the  time,  and  is 
practically  disregarded  afterwards,  the  ordinance  becomes 
nothing  better  than  a  useless  ceremony,  and  an  idle  and 
profane  mockery  of  its  Divine  author. — Much  has  been 
said,  and  said  sometimes  very  loosely,  by  psedobaptists,  of 
the  rights  and  privileges  of  infants,  and  the  impropriety 
of  abridging  their  privileges,  and  abstracting  their  rights, 
in  refusing  them  baptism.  But  I  would  have  it  seriously 
considered,  that  the  right  and  the  privilege  are  not  worth 
the  contending  for,  unless  the  ordinance  be  connected 
with  parental  instruction,  discipline  and  prayer.  It  is 
evident,  that  the  pouring  of  a  little  water  on  an  infant's 
face,  can,  in  itself,  do  it  no  good  ;  and  as  little  would  the 
immersion  of  its  whole  body.  The  mere  external  recog- 
nition of  its  connection  with  the  Christian  community, 
can  be  of  no  benefit,  except  as  associated  with  subsequent 
training,  for  the  performance  of  the  duties,  and  the  en- 
joyment of  the  blessings  of  that  community.  The  profit 
to  the  child  must  be  through  the  medium  of  the  parent : 
and  it  has  long  appeared  to  me,  that  it  is  to  the  parent, 
rather  than  to  the  child,  that  infant  baptism  is,  in 
the  first  instance,  to  be  reckoned  a  privilege.  It  is  an 
ordinance,  in  which  there  is  brought  before  the  minds  of 
pious  parents,  a  pleasing  and  animating  recognition  of 
the  covenant  promises  of  God  to  them  and  to  their  off- 
spring, which  form  so  great  an  encouragement  to  them  in 
the  discharge  of  duty,  and  in  looking,  by  prayer,  for  the 
divine  blessing  upon  the  objects  of  their  tender  love. 
That  multitudes  who  have  their  children  baptized  never 
think  of  the  ordinance  in 'any  such  such  light,  and  are 
quite  regardless  of  the  obligations  which,  I  will  not  say  it 
imposes,  but  which  it  implies,  and  brings  to  mind, — is  a 
melancholy  truth.     And  I  would  earnestly  admonish  those 


140  SECTION    III. 

parents,  of  the  guilt  they  are  contracting,  by  their  solemn 
mockery  of  heaven,  in  the  careless  profanation  of  a  Di- 
vine institution.  The  abuse  is  awfully  extensive  ;  and  it 
is  one  of  the  evils  which  we  owe,  not  entirely  indeed,  but 
in  a  very  great  degree,  to  the  nationalizing  of  Christianity 
by  its  incorporation  with  our  civil  polity,  and  the  conse- 
quent universality  of  its  profession.  The  abuse  has  af- 
forded a  great  advantage  to  the  adversaries  of  infant  bap- 
tism ;  but  there  is  both  weakness  and  unfairness  in  hav- 
ing recourse  to  it.  It  shows  a  mind  incapable  of  distin- 
guishing between  the  precepts  of  God  and  the  perversions 
of  them  by  men.  The  Lord's  supper,  from  the  same 
cause,  has  been  as  extensively  perverted  and  abused  as 
infant  baptism.  But,  while  we  regret  and  mourn  the 
prostitution  of  any  ordinance  of  God,  this  can  never  be  a 
valid  reason  for  our  neglecting  its  legitimate  and  scrip- 
tural use.  I  am  fully  persuaded  of  the  truth  of  the  re- 
mark, that  if  infant  baptism  had  not  been  so  much  abus- 
ed, it  would  not  have  been  so  much  opposed. 

Let  it  not  be  said,  that  parents  may  have  a  sufficiently 
strong  feeling  of  their  duty  to  their  children,  and  may 
fulfil  that  duty  equally  well  with  others,  although  they  do 
not  see  the  scripture  authority  for  their  baptism.  I  do 
not  deny,  that  a  baptist  may  be  exemplary  in  the  Chris- 
tian tuition  of  his  family,  and  that  many  a  paedobaptist 
may  be  very  much  the  contrary.  But  this  is  not  the 
question.  I  can  conceive  of  a  Christian,  from  certain 
conscientious  but  unscriptural  and  groundless  scruples, 
living  for  successive  years  in  the  neglect  of  the  ordinance 
of  the  Lord's  supper,  and  yet,  to  all  appearance,  influ- 
enced as  much  as  others,  in  his  general  character,  by  the 
habitual  remembrance  of  his  Redeemer.  We  should  nev- 
re  infer  from  such  a  case,  that  the  ordinance  was  useless. 
Neither  ought  we  in  the  other.  If  God  has  given  promi- 
ses to  his  people  and  their  seed,  promises  fitted  to  stimu- 
late believing  parents  to  the  fulfilment  of  their  sacred 
trust,  and  has  instituted  an  ordinance  in  which  these 
promises  are  recognized  and  pledged  to  them,  it  does  not 
become  us  to  neglect  the  gracious  and  pleasing  rite,  on 
the  ground  that  we  can  keep  the  promises  sufficiently 
well  in  mind  without  it.      It  is  kind  in  that  God   who 


SECTION    III.  141 

"knoweth  our  frame, ';  not  only  to  give  us  his  word,  but 
to  embody,  as  it  were,  that  word  to  our  senses,  to  confirm 
it  to  our  faith,  and  to  impress  it  upon  our  memories  and 
hearts,  by  significant  outward  institutions.  "  Q,uam  enim 
suave  piis  animis,"  says  Calvin  very  beautifully,  "  non 
verbo  tantum,  sed  oculari  etiam  spectnculo.  certiores 
fieri,  tantum  se  gratios  apud  patrem  ccelestem  obtinere,  ut 
posteritas  sua  illi  curae  sit."  "  How  pleasing  to  the  minds 
of  the  godly,  not  merely  to  have  a  verbal  assurance,  but  to 
have  it  certified  to  them,  by  visible  signs,  that  the  grace 
of  their  heavenly  Father  is  so  great,  as  to  extend,  not  to 
themselves  only,  but  to  their  offspring  !" — If  Christian  pa- 
rents do  not  feel,  as  they  ought,  the  practical  encourage- 
ment to  duty  which  the  ordinance,  as  a  recognition  of 
Divine  promise,  presents,  and  do  not  act  accordingly, 
(and  all  of  us  must  be  sensible  of  criminal  deficiency) — 
the  fault  lies,  not  with  the  institution,  or  with  its  author, 
but  with  their  own  want  of  taith,  and  of  right  disposition. 
We  consider  baptism,  as  an  ordinance  for  believers  and 
their  children.  I  am  aware,  indeed,  that  I  do  not  express 
the  sentiment  of  oil  paedobaptists,  when  I  say,  that  the 
administration  of  it  to  children  ought  to  be  confined  to 
those  of  believers  only  ;  meaning  of  course,  by  the  desig- 
nation, such  as  we  have  reason,  at  the  time,  to  acknow- 
ledge as  believers.  In  regard  to  adults,  there  is  an  obvi- 
ous difference  between  the  ground  of  title  to  the  reception 
of  baptism,  and  the  ground  of  warrant  for  its  administra- 
tion. The  former  is  sincere  and  genuine  faith  ;  the  lat- 
ter is  the  profession  of  faith,  uncontradicted  by  any  cir- 
cumstance which  deprives  it  of  credibility.  When  Philip 
had  "preached  Jesus"  to  the  eunuch  of  Ethiopia,  and  the 
latter  said,  "  What  doth  hinder  me  to  be  baptized  ?"  the 
reply  expressed,  in  very  simple  and  explicit  terms,  the 
ground  of  right  to  the  ordinance — "If  thou  believest  with 
all  thy  heart"  (that  is,  if  thou  really  and  in  earnest  be- 
lievest) "  thou  mayest." — But  it  was  not  according  to  any 
secret  "  discernment  of  spirits,"  that  baptism  was  admin- 
istered ;  and  mistakes  might  be  made  respecting  the 
genuineness  of  the  profession.  When  the  same  Philip, 
in  the  city  of  Samaria,  "  preached  the  things  concerning 
the  kingdom  o(  God,  and  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,"  Simon 


142 


SECTION    III. 


Magus  was  amongst  those  who  professed  to  receive  his 
testimony  :  and  on  this  profession  he  was  baptized. — ■ 
Here,  then,  appears  the  distinction,  between  the  right  to 
baptism,  and  the  warrant  for  its  administration.  Simon 
Magus  had  not  the  same  right  to  baptism  as  the  Ethiopian 
eunuch;  for,  instead  of"  believing  with  all  his  heart,"  it 
appeared  afterwards  that  he  was  still  "  in  the  gall  of  bit- 
terness and  the  bond  of  iniquity  :"  but,  in  both  cases, 
Philip  was  equally  warrantable  in  administering  the  or- 
dinance; at  least,  we  have  no  ground  to  presume,  that 
there  were  any  circumstances  in  Simon's  profession, 
which  ought  to  have  destroyed  its  credit,  and  which  would 
have  justified  Philip  in  refusing  to  baptize  him. 

I  am  not  aware,  from  any  facts  or  principles  in  the 
New  Testament,  of  any  profession  of  faith  being  suffi- 
cient for  admission  to  baptism,  that  is  not  sufficient  for 
admission  to  the  Lord's  supper,  and  the  full  fellowship  of 
the  church  of  Christ.  Baptism  was  not  administered  to 
aduJts  on  a  mere  declaration  of  willingness  to  be  instruc- 
ted, but  on  a  profession  of  faith  in  the  testimony  deliver- 
ed. Although  the  statements  of  the  history  are  very 
brief, — so  brief,  as  occasionally  to  produce  oversights  and 
hasty  conclusions, — I  do  not  recollect  any  exception  to 
this  representation.  When  the  profession  of  faith  was 
made,  upon  hearing  the  gospel,  and  witnessing  its  accom- 
panying evidence,  it  was,  in  the  judgment  of  charity,, 
supposed  to  be  sincere, — to  be  "  with  all  the  heart  :"  nor 
am  I  aware  of  the  existence,  in  apostolic  times,  of  any 
such  anamolous  descriptions  of  persons,  as  those  who 
were  baptized,  but  were  not  admitted  to  church-fellow- 
ship. The  three  thousand  who,  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,. 
"  gladly  received  Peter's  word,  were  baptized  ;  and  the 
same  day"  they  were  "  added  to  the  church." — "  John's 
baptism"  may  be  considered  as  debatable  ground,  and, 
therefore,  I  shall  not  enter  upon  it ;  but  I  ask  for  an  in- 
stance, subsequently  to  the  commencement  of  apostolic 
preaching,  and  the  first  formation  of  a  church,  of  a  per- 
son making  a  profession  of  faith  which  was  sufficient  for 
his  admission  to  baptism,  and  yet  not  sufficient  for  his  re- 
ception to  other  Christian  ordinances.  I  know  of  none. 
The  genuineness  of  the  profession,  made  at  baptism,  was 


SECTION   III.  143 

tried  in  the  church,  not  in  an  intervening  period  between 
baptism  and  admission  to  the  church. — Now  the  same 
principles  which  the  New  Testament  teaches  me  to  apply 
to  the  baptism  of  adults,  it  of  course  prescribes  for  the 
baptism  of  their  children.  As  I  should  not  conceive  my- 
self warranted  to  baptize  an  adult,  on  any  profession  of 
faith  which  would  not  warrant  my  receiving  him  to  the 
table  of  the  Lord  ; — neither  do  I  consider  it  right  and 
scriptural,  to  baptize  the  child  of  any  man,  on  a  profes- 
sion that  would  not  justify  his  admission  into  the  church. 
I  can  think  of  no  principle,  which,  as  a  rule  of  practice, 
is  definite  and  intelligible,  but  this.  I  am  well  auare  of 
the  different  sentiments  entertained,  and  the  different 
course  pursued,  by  many  (I  might,  I  fear,  say,  by  most) 
of  my  psedobaptist  brethren  in  the  south,  1  cannot  but 
think  them  very  far  in  the  wrong: — and  I  have  never 
been  able  to  find  any  thing  like  fixed  and  precise  ground 
amongst  them,  on  this  subject.  Some  place  the  warrant 
for  baptizing,  in  a  willingness  to  be  instructed  ;  some,  in 
a  general  profession  of  Christianity,  and  of  faith  in  the 
Bible;  others,  in  the  attendance  of  the  party  applying  for 
it  at  church,  and  bringing  his  family  with  him,  so  as  to 
put  them  in  the  way  of  good  ;  while  others  still,  I  believe, 
go  so  far  as  to  concur  with  the  established  church  of 
England,  and  administer  it  to  all  who  apply,  considering 
it  as  the  privilege  of  the  child,  without  regard  to  the  pro- 
fession and  character  of  the  parent  at  all.  Now,  in  all 
this,  there  is  an  undefined  and  unsettled  laxity,  which 
appears  to  me  highly  pernicious  in  its  practical  conse- 
quences ;  and  which,  moreover,  tends  to  weaken,  and 
even,  if  followed  fairly  out,  to  overthrow,  the  whole  of  the 
argument  for  infant  baptism  that  is  founded  on  the  cove- 
nant relation,  so  distinctly  recognized  in  scripture,  be- 
tween parent  and  child. — Let  me  not  be  misunderstood. 
1  do  not  say  that  I  would  not  baptize  the  child  of  any 
man,  who  is  not  a  member  of  a  church,  or  who  floes  not 
immediately  join  one.  What  I  *ay  is,  that  I  would  not 
baptize,  where  I  could  not  conscientiously  receive  to 
communion  on  the  same  profession  of  faith. — f  h;>ve  be- 
fore noticed  the  extent  to  which  the  lax  administration 
and  abuse  of  the  ordinance  prevails  : — and  I  should  re- 


144  SECTION    III. 

joice  to  see  my  dissenting  brethren  setting  their  counte* 
nance  and  their  practice  decidedly  against  it. 

The  chief  ground  on  which  a  looser  principle  than  the 
one  I  have  assumed,  has  been  usually  vindicated  by  our 
southern  brethren,  has  been  derived  from  the  practice  of 
the  Jewish  Church  in  regard  to  circumcision.  All  chil- 
dren that  were  Jews  by  birth,  it  is  alleged,  were  indiscrim- 
inately admitted  to  the  prescribed  ordinance,  their  parents 
professing  faith  in  the  God  of  Abraham,  and  no  evidence 
being  required  at  the  time  of  the  genuineness  of  that 
profession:  and  we  should  proceed  on  a  similar  principle 
in  regard  to  baptism. — The  legitimacy  of  this  conclusion, 
however,  appears  to  me  to  be  much  more  than  question- 
able. Those  who  act  upon  it  would  do  well  to  consider, 
how  far,  if  fairly  carried  out,  it  will  lead  them.  All  the 
parents,  who  had  their  children  circumcised,  were  them- 
selves admitted  to  the  passover,  and  other  institutions  of 
the  Jewish  church.  If,  therefore,  the  alleged  parallelism 
in  the  one  case  justifies  the  admission  of  children  to  bap- 
tism to  the  same  extent  to  which  they  were  admitted  to 
circumcision,  it  must  equally  justify  the  admission  of  their 
parents  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  all  the  institutions  of 
Christian  fellowship.  I  do  not  see  how  this  inference  can 
be  evaded.  It  will  not  do  to  say,  that  there  is  not  the 
same  established  parallelism  between  the  Passover  and  the 
Lord's  supper,  as  there  is  between  circumcision  and  bap- 
tism. For  supposing  this  to  be  true,  my  argument  does 
not  rest  on  any  such  parallelism.  It  would  be  the  same, 
though  there  were  no  resemblance  at  all  between  the  two 
former  institutions.  It  rests  simply  on  the  fact  of  the  ad- 
mission to  the  ordinances,  whatever  they  might  b^,  which 
formed  the  outward  distinction  of  the  Jews,  as  the  pro- 
fessors of  faith  in  the  God  of  Abraham,  and  of  such 
Gentile  proselytes  as  adopted  that  faith — the  admission  to 
these  ordinances  of  all  parents  whose  children  were  ad- 
mitted to  the  initiatory  rite  of  circumcision.  Let  an  in- 
stance be  pointed  out  of  a  parent,  whose  child  was  admitted 
to  circumcision,  while  he  himself  was  not  to  all  the  ordi- 
nances of  the  Jewish  church.  If  no  such  instance  can 
be  produced,  let  the  parallelism  be  fairly  followed  on  both 
sides.     Admit  to  the  ordinances  for  adults  all  the  parent* 


SECTION    III.  145 

whose    infant  offspring  yon   admit   to  the  ordinance    for 
children. —  This  is  precisely  what  I  contend  for.      It   was 
what  was  actually  done  then:  it  is  what;  in  my  judgment, 
ought  to  he  done  now. — Tne  great  and  essential  difference 
lies  in  this, — that  the  New  Testament  state  of  the  church 
is  uniformly  represented,  both    by    prophetic  intimations, 
and  by  apostolic  instructions,  as  iireuded  of  G  >d  to  be  a 
state  of  greater  purity  and  spirituality  of  communion  than 
had  previously  existed.     The  Jewish  church  was  national. 
When   the   new    dispensation  was  introduced,    it  was  no 
longer   to   be   so.      lis  constitution  was  to  be  remodelled. 
The  wicked  were   to    be  shaken  out  of  it.      It  was  to  be 
revived  and   purified.      It    was   not  to  consist  of  nations, 
but  of  individuals  of  all  nations,  separated  from  the  world 
by  the  grace  of  God.      It  is  evident  from  the  addresses  of 
the  different  inspired  Epistles,"  what  manner  of  persons" 
they  were  who  ought  to   have  been  received  and  retained 
as  members  of  churches,  associates   in    the  worship,  and 
sharers  of    the  privileges,   of   the    new  state   of    things. 
They    are   "  beloved  of  God,    called    stints,"    Rom.    i.  7. 
"  sanctified  in    Christ  Jesus,''    I    Cor.    i.    2.     "saints  and 
faithlnl  in  Christ  Jesus,"  Eph.  i.   I.  such  as  had  "  obtain- 
ed   like  precious  laith  with  the  apostles,"  2  Pet.  i.   I,  &c. 
That  persons  ot  a  different  description  did  find  their  way 
into  the  communion  of  the  saints,  on  a  false  profession  of 
the  f  ith,  is  ton  true.      But  then  the  churches  are  bl  fined, 
and  severely  reprimanded,    for    retaining  such  persons  in 
their  fellowship,  alter  they  had,  by  their  conduct,  discov- 
ered their  true  character.      See    particularly   the    Epistles 
to  the  Corinthians,  and  those   in    the  Book  of  Revel  ition 
to  t lie  seven  churches  of  the  lesser  Asia. —  My  argument, 
therefore,  which  is  a  very  simple,  and,  as  it  appears  to  me, 
a  very  conclusive  one,  stands  thus.     In  the  national  church 
of  Israel,   all    pare  its    whose    children    are   circu incised, 
were  themselves  admitted    to   the  Passover  and  lire  other 
ordinances  of  that  communion.      This  was  accordant  with 
the  constitution  of  the  church   at   that  time.      The  same 
principle  applies  in    the  Church  of  Chris*.      All  p  rents, 
whose  children  are  admitted  to  baptism,  should  themselves 
be  admissible   to    the   Lord's  supper,  and  the  other  social 
ordinances  of  its   communion.      But,   whi.e  the  principle 
12 


146  SECTION    III. 

in  both  cases  is  the  same,  there  is,  in  the  latter  of  the 
two  cases,  a  restriction  in  the  application  of  it,  corres- 
ponding to  the  superior  purity  of  New  Testament  fellow- 
ship. We  are  not  authorized  to  receive  into  communion 
any  individuals,  respecting  whom  we  have  not  reason  to 
believe  that  "  Christ  has  received  them  ;"  and  if,  after 
their  reception,  we  discover  that  we  have  been  mistaken 
in  our  judgment  of  their  profession,  we  are  bound  to  sep- 
arate them  from  the  church.  And  of  those  whom  we  are 
not  warranted,  by  the  laws  of  Christ,  to  receive,  and  to 
retain  in  communion,  we  are  not,  in  my  opinion  warranted 
to  baptize  the  children.  The  procedure  of  those  who  act 
otherwise  appears  to  me  to  be  consistent  neither  with 
Jewish  nor  with  Christian  principles.  If  we  are  to  pro- 
ceed at  all  according  to  the  former,  let  us  give  them  their 
full  extent  of  application,  and  have  national  churches  at 
once.  But  if  we  cannot  admit  of  these,  in  a  "  kingdom 
which  is  not  of  this  world,"  let  us  not  apply  the  old  prin- 
ciples of  communion,  in  a  partial  and  inconsistent  way,  to 
the  New  Testament  church. — All  national  establishments, 
under  the  Christian  dispensation,  instead  of  deriving  any 
scriptural  authority  from  the  Constitution  of  the  Jewish 
church,  are  utterly  subversive  of  the  declared  will  of  God, 
in  regard  to  the  purer  and  more  select  and  spiritual  com- 
munion of  New  Testament  times.  And  I  cannot  but 
regret,  when  any  of  my  dissenting  brethren  adopt  and 
act  upon  principles  that  have  the  same  unhappy  ten- 
dency. 

One  evil  resulting  from  that  prevailing  abuse  in  the  ad- 
ministration of  infant  baptism,  to  which  I  have  repeatedly 
alluded,  is,  its  promoting  the  thoughtlessness  of  parents, 
as  to  the  connection  between  the  ordinance  and  their  duty. 
— "  I  know  him,"  said  the  God  of  Abraham,  "that  he 
will  command  his  children  and  his  household  after  him, 
and  they  shall  keep  the  way  of  the  Lord,  to  do  justice  and 
judgment:  that  the  Lord  may  bung  upon  Abraham  that 
which  he  hath  spoken  of  him." — Gen.  xviii.  19. — I  do 
not  enter  here  into  the  illustration  of  parental  duties,  and 
of  the  manner  in  which  they  ought  to  be  fulfilled.  But 
I  press  upon  Christian  parents  the  example  of  the  father 
of  the  faithful,   as  an  instance  in  which  the  discharge  of 


SECTION   III.  147 

duty  is  connected  with  the  fulfilment  of  promise.  All 
the  promises  of  God,  indeed,  are  intended  to  operate,  not 
as  inducements  to  indolence,  but  as  stimulants  to  activity. 
The  assurance,  that  "  it  is  God  who  worketh  in  us  both 
to  will  and  to  do,  of  his  good  pleasure,"  is  not  to  encour- 
age us  to  expect  spiritual  progress  without  the  use  of 
means  :  but  to  excite  us  to  "  work  out  our  own  salvation," 
in  the  diligent  employment  of  these  means,  "  with  fear 
and  trembling." — Abraham's  bringing  up  his  family  in 
the  fear  of  the  Lord  is  connected,  in  the  above  quoted 
passage,  with  the  Lord's  "  bringing  upon  him  that  which 
he  had  spoken  of  him."  But  how  could  it  contribute  to 
this?  On  the  promise  of  a  fleshly  seed,  I  have  before 
said,  it  could  have  no  conceivable  influence.  But  on  that 
of  a  spiritual  seed,  "  a  seed  to  serve  the  Lord,"  its  influ- 
ence is  immediate  and  apparent.  The  means  are  suited 
to  the  end, — the  cause  to  the  effect.  Jehovah  begins  the 
fulfilment  of  his  promise,  to  make  him  the  spiritual  "  fath- 
er of  many  nations,"  and  "  to  be  a  God  to  him  and  his 
seed  after  him,"  by  Abraham's  own  instrumentality,  in 
thejeligious  training  of  his  family  ;  and  in  this  way  "  race 
unto  race"  was  made  to  "  praise  him"  and  "one  genera- 
tion to  tell  of  his  wonderful  works  to  another  :" — lor  "he 
established  a  testimony  in  Jacob,  and  appointed  a  law  in 
Israel,  which  he  commanded  our  fathers  that  they  should 
make  them  known  unto  their  children,  that  the  generation 
to  come  might  know  them,  and  the  children  which  should 
be  born,  who  should  arise  and  declare  them  unto  their 
children  ,  that  they  might  set  their  hope  in  God,  and  not 
forget  the  works  of  the  Lord,  but  keep  his  command- 
ments."— It  is  still  by  the  agency  of  parents,  that  God 
fulfils  his  word.  It  is  while  they  "  bring  up  their  chil- 
dren in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord  ;"  that 
he  "  pours  out  his  Spirit  upon  their  seed  and  his  blessing 
upon  their  offspring,"  so  that  ^-hey  "grow  up  as  among 
the  grass,  and  as  willows  by  the  water  courses:"  and  if 
we  are  looking  for  the  blessing  apart  from  the  discharge 
of  the  duty,  we  are  not  exercising  commanded  confidence, 
but  guilty  of  unwarranted  ami  irrational  presumption. 

Christian  parents, — the  charge  intrusted  to  you  is  one, 
the  most  momentous  and  interesting  that  can  be  imagined 
t 


148  SECTION   HI. 

by  the  human  mind.  It  is  the  charge  of  immortal  souls. 
Every  child,  when  horn  into  the  world,  enters  upon  an 
existence  that  is  never  to  terminate,  upon  a  short  and  pre- 
carious lite  on  earth,  which  must  he  succeeded  by  eternal 
blessedness,  or  eternal  woe.  How  solemn  the  consider- 
ation !— And  with  regard  to  your  own  children,  to  you  is 
committed  the  sacred  trust,  of  imparting  to  them  that 
knowledge,  which,  through  the  blessing  of  God,  shall 
make  them  "  wise  unto  salvation."  These  lights,  lighted 
for  eternity,  it  is  yours  to  feed  with  holy  oil  from  the  sanc- 
tuary of  God,  that  they  may  burn,  with  pure  and  lovely 
radiance,  before  the  throne  above. — These  never-dying 
plants,  it  is  yours  to  rear  and  to  cherish,  bringing  down 
upon  them,  by  your  prayers,  the  dews  and  rains  of  heav- 
en, that  so  they  may  flourish  and  bear  fruit  f<«r  ever,  in 
the  paradise  of  God. — The  language  of  the  "  Heavenly 
Father"  to  every  Christian  parent,  is  that  of  Pharaoh's 
daughter  to  the  mother  ot  Moses,  "  Take  this  child,  and 
nurse  it  for  me."  O  forget  not  the  sacred  obligation. 
Let  it  be  engraven  on  your  hearts,  "as  with  a  pen  of  iron 
and  the  point  of  a  diamond."  You  love  your  children. 
They  are  dear  to  you  as  the  apple  of  your  eye, — precious 
as  your  own  souls.  What  is  there  that  you  would  not 
part  with,  to  secure  their  well-being?  And  are  not  their 
eternal  interests  first  in  your  thoughts,  and  first  in  your 
desires  for  them  ?  If  you  feel  as  Christians,  they  are, — 
they  must  be.  Let  them,  then,  be  first  in  your  prayers, 
and  first  in  your  exertions.  Seek  to  impress  early  on  their 
hearts  a  sense  of  the  unspeakable  importance  of  eternal 
things.  Teach  them  the  knowledge  and  fear  of  the  Lord, 
when  you  sit  in  ihe  house,  and  when  you  walk  by  the 
way  ;  never  with  the  repulsive  austerity  of  a  master,  but 
with  all  the  engaging  tenderness  of  parental  love.  Let 
no  prospect  of  temporal  advantage  induce  you,  to  expose 
their  souls  to  unnecessary  hazards,  from  the  snares  and 
temptations  of  a  deceitful  world.  Let  no  corporeal  at- 
tractions, and  no  mental  accomplishments,  however  grat- 
ifying they  may  lawfully  be,  appropriate  that  peculiar  joy, 
which,  in  the  hearts  of  godly  parents,  must  ever  be  re- 
served for  "seeing  their  children  walking  in  truth."  — 
Set  your   hearts,  with  intense   and  unquenchable  desire, 


SECTION    III.  149 

on  the  salvation  of  your  offspring.  Ask  it  of  God  with 
the  fervor  and  importunity  of  faith.  Show  the  sincerity 
of  your  prayers,  by  unwearied  attention  to  the  use  of  ne- 
cessary means  : — and  I  doubt  not,  you  will  have  the  bless- 
edness of  seeing,  amongst  your  offspring,  a  seed  arise  to 
serve  the  Lord. 

If  in  any  case  there  should  be  an  apparent  failure  of 
the  blessing,  there  is  a  call  to  much  searching  of  heart, 
and  close  investigation  of  the  whole  process  of  training. 
It  is  surely  safer,  to  question  our  own  fidelity  to  duty,  than 
God's  fidelity  to  promise.  Are  you  sure,  that  the  salva- 
tion of  your  children  has  engaged  your-  desires,  with  a 
fervor  and  a  constancy  proportioned  to  his  infinite  impor- 
tance ? — Have  you  pursued  this  object  with  sufficient 
seriousness,  as  "  the  one  think  needful"  to  your  parental 
happiness? — While  you  have  been  teaching  the  truths  of 
God,  have  you  been  careful  to  "  walk  before  you  house 
in  a  perfect  way,"  exemplifying,  in  your  whole  deport- 
ment, their  holy,  heavenly  influence  ? — Have  you,  in  no 
measure,  been  guilty  of  sacrificing  the  souls  of  your  chil- 
dren to  their  temporal  interests? — Have  your  efforts,  and 
your  prayers  been  engaged  about  this  object,  with  any 
thing  like  a  proportion  to  its  unutterable  magnitude? — 
Have  your  exertions  beeii  believing  exertions,^-your 
prayers,  the  prayers  of  faith  ? — or  has  there  not  been,  in 
both,  a  lamentable  deficiency  of  firm,  and  simple-hearted, 
and  practical  confidence  in  God? 

May  the  "God  of  the  families  of  Israel"  impress,  more 
deeply  than  ever,  upon  your  minds,  the  duty  enjoined  up- 
on you  !  Let  the  baptism  of  your  own  children,  and  every 
baptism  you  are  called  to  witness,  remind  you  of  your  ob- 
ligations, and  bring  you  to  your  knees,  with  tears  of  con- 
scious short-coming,  and  of  earnest  entreaty  for  grace  to 
fulfil  them ! 

2.  To  the  children  of  godly  parents,  I  would  briefly 
but  affectionately  say  : — You  enjoy,  or  you  have  enjoyed, 
a  most  precious  privilege, — a  blessing  for  which  you  can- 
not be  sufficiently  thankful.  But  the  privilege  may,  like 
every  other,  be  abused  or  neglected,  and  the  blessing,  by 
this  means,  converted  to  a  curse.  Every  favor  of  heaven 
heightens  the  responsibility  of  those  on  whom  it  is  con- 
*12 


150  SECTION  III. 

ferred,  and,  through  the  perversity  of  the  human  heart, 
exposes  to  the  danger  of  augmented  guilt ;  responsibility 
being  according  to  privilege,  [f  your  parents  considered 
aright  what  they  were  doing,  when  they  presented  you  to 
the  Lord  in  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  it  was  not,  with 
them,  a  season  of  thoughtless  merriment,  on  the  giving  of 
a  name  to  their  child  ;  but  a  time  of  tender  feeling,  of 
serious  reflection,  of  solicitous  anticipation,  of  solemn 
prayer.  They  brought  you  in  faith  to  Jesus.  They  im- 
plored his  blessing  upon  you.  They  felt  the  weight  of 
the  sacred  trust.  They  placed  believing  reliance  on  the 
divine  promises.  They  resolved  that  you  should  be 
trained  in  the  fear  of  the  Lord, — in  his  "  nurture  and  ad- 
monition ;"  and  they  looked,  with  earnest  desire,  for  the 
grace  of  God,  to  enable  them  to  fulfil  their  resolution. 
I  speak  not  of  vows  made  by  them  in  your  name ;  and 
far  less,  of  god-fathers  and  god-mothers,  stepping  in  be- 
tween you  and  your  parents,  and  taking  upon  themselves 
a  gratuitous  responsibility  in  your  behalf;  because  1  find 
none  of  these  things  in  my  Bible,  and  regard  them,  along 
with  some  other  practices,  as  inventions  of  men, — human 
appendages  to  a  simple  institution.  But  at  your  baptism, 
your  parents  had  before  them  an  impressive  remembran- 
cer of  the  obligations,  on  their  part,  arising  from  the 
promises  of  God's  covenant ;  they  avowed  their  sense  of 
these  obligations,  and  their  determination,  in  the  strength 
of  grace,  to  fulfil  them  ;  and,  if  they  have  acted  in  con- 
sistency with  the  professions  then  made,  and  with  the  de- 
sign of  the  ordinance,  they  have  brought  you  up  as 
young  disciples  of  the  Saviour,  instructing  you  in  his 
truth,  and  affectionately  admonishing  you  in  his  name. 
They  have  sought,  on  your  behalf,  the  guidance  of  the 
"good  Shepherd,"  who  "gathers  the  lambs  in  his  arms 
and  carries  thern  in  his  bosom,"  that  under  his  gracious 
eye  you  might  be  induced  to  "  follow  the  footsteps  of  the 
flock." 

Have  you,  then,  my  young  friends,  improved  and  prof- 
ited by  your  connection  with  your  parents,  and  the  privi- 
leges thence  arising  ?  Have  you  entered  into  their  de- 
sires?— have  you  valued  the  promises  and  blessings  of 
God's  covenant? — have  you  sought,  that  the  emblematic 


SECTION    III.  151 

import  of  your  baptism  may  be  realized  in  your  experi- 
ence 1 — and  that  your  names  may  be  found,  with  those 
of  your  parents,  in  the  Lamb's  book  of  life?  O  beware 
of  "  forsaking  the  guide  of  your  youth,  and  forgetting  the 
covenant  of  your  God,"  else,  to  use  his  own  expression, 
"you  shall  know  his  breach  of  promise,"  and  "  bring  up- 
on yourselves  a  curse,  and  not  a  blessing."  Remember 
the  warnings,  "  To  whom  much  is  given,  of  them  will 
much  be  required:" — "The  servant  that  knew  his 
Lord's  will,  and  did  commit  things  worthy  of  stripes, 
shall  be  beaten  with  many  stripes." — "  Thou,  Caperna- 
um, which  art  exalted  unto  heaven,  shalt  be  brought 
down  to  he'l ;  for  if  the  mighty  works  which  have  been 
done  in  thee  had  been  done  in  Sodom,  it  would  have  con- 
tinued unto  this  day.  But  I  say  unto  you,  it  shall  be 
more  tolerable  for  the  land  of  Sodom  in  the  day  of 
judgment  than  for  thee  !" 

If  you  have  received,  in  the  love  of  it,  the  "  instruction 
of  wisdom,"  the  duty  of  walking  in  fellowship  with  the 
church  of  Christ,  in  all  his  ordinances,  ought  to  be  seri- 
ously pondered  by  you.  It  is  true,  that  "except  a  man 
be  born  again,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of 
God  :"  he  cannot  be  received  into  it  above,  and  is  not  a 
fit  member  of  it  below.  But,  in  the  case  of  children, 
brought  up  in  "  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord," 
the  change  which  is  thus  expressed  may  often  be,  nay, 
often  is,  imperceptible  in  its  first  commencements,  and 
gradual  in  its  subsequent  progress, — so  that  time  and  cir- 
cumstances cannot  be  specified.  This  is  what,  from  the 
nature  of  the  case,  we  might  reasonably  anticipate.  I  do 
not  say,  there  is  such  a  thing  as  hereditary  grace  :  but, 
as  the  grace  of  God,  in  its  various  blessings,  is  conveyed 
to  sinners  by  means,  it  quite  accords  with  the  natural  or- 
der of  things,  that  it  should  accompany  those  means,  and 
flow,  as  it  were,  in  the  same  channel  with  them.  So 
that,  if  the  knowledge  of  God,  the  great  mean  by  which 
the  blessings  of  salvation  come  to  be  enjoyed,  was  ap- 
pointed to  be  conveyed  from  generation  to  generation,  we 
must  suppose  the  blessings  to  be  conveyed  along  with  it, 
and  the  conveyance  of  the  blessings  to  be  the  grand  de- 
sign of  the  conveyance  of  the  knowledge.     There  is  no 


15*2  SECTION    III. 

other  design,  which  we  can  imagine  God  to  have  had,  in 
such  appointment.  And,  therefore,  although  his  grace  is 
not  imparted  by  fleshly  birth;  yet  that,  when  his  people 
are  attentive  to  the  means  appointed,  this  grace  should 
appear  descending  through  their  generations,  cannot  at  all 
be  matter  of  wonder. — Not  that,  in  religious  education, 
there  is  freedom  from  danger.  .Beware,  my  young 
friends,  of  thinking  so.  The  natural  deprarity  of  our 
hearts  has  infused  danger  into  every  thing.  The  danger 
here  is  imminent.  It  is  that  of  growing  up  in  the  form 
of  godliness,  without  its  power;  in  profession,  without 
real  principle  ;  in  outward  virtue,  without  inward  piety. 
Beware  of  this  danger.  But  let  not  the  jealous  d»;ead  of 
it  carry  you  to  the  extreme,  of  keeping  back  from  those 
ordinances,  which  you  know  it  to  be  the  duty  of  all  to 
observe,  who  believe  in  Christ,  and  fear  God.  If  you  are 
conscious  of  this  faith  an4  fear,  and  of  \our  need  of  all 
the  instituted  means  of  stability  and  growth,  neglect  not 
those  institutions,  which  are  designed  for  the  spiritual 
improvement  of  the  disciples.  Nothing  ought  to  be  more 
delightful  to  the  churches  of  Christ  and  their  pastors,  than 
the  admission  amongst  them  of  the  children  of  the  mem: 
bers,  the  fruits  of  the  Divine  blessing  on  parental  duty. 

Some  may  belong  to  parents,  who  had  them  baptized 
in  their  infancy  as  a  mere  matter  of  form,  in  compliance 
with  national  custom,  making  them  like  others,  giving 
them  their  name,  and  fancying  that  their  being  christen- 
ed made  them  Christians  of  course.  But,  if  the  profes- 
sion of  Christianity  made  by  your  parents  has  been  care- 
less and  worldly,  destitute  of  spirituality  and  of  scriptural 
evidence,  I  have  only  to  say  beware  of  following  it.—  Some 
have  perplexed  themselves  with  the  question,  whether,  in 
such  circumstances,  they  ought  not  to  be  re-baptized; 
and  antippedobaptists  are  apt  to  feel  a  kind  of  triumphant 
self-complacency  in  such  difficulties,  and  to  urge  them  on 
weak  consciences  in  their  most  puzzling  forms.  But 
nothing  can  be  more  unfair.  Even  if  the  difficulty  were 
ever  so  perplexing,  it  could  not,  in  the  least  degree,  affect 
the  conclusiveness  of  our  general  argument.  A  difficul- 
ty, which  has  resulted  from  the  abuse  of  an  ordinance, 
can  never  be  fairly  urged  against  the  proper  and  legiti- 


SECTION    III.  153 

mate  use  of  it. — Our  baptist  friends  suppose,  that  adult 
baptism  only  was  the  original  practice  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment churches,  and,  consequently,  that  it  early  gave 
place,  to  the  practice  of  infant  baptism  in  rrnety-niue  hun- 
dreths  of  the  Christian  community.  It  is  allowable  for  the 
sake  of  argument  to  suppose  the  case  reversed.  Suppose, 
then,  infant  baptism  to  have  been  the  original  practice, 
and  to  have  been  early  renounced  by  ninety-nine  hun- 
dreths  of  professing  Christians,  the  remaining  hundredth 
alone  retaining  the  custom: — suppose,  that,  when,  Chris- 
tianity came  to  be  incorporated  with  the  kingdoms  of  this 
world,  adult  instead  of  infant  baptism  had  been  the  pre- 
vailing usage;  and  th  it  as  free  an  admission  of  adults  to 
baptism  had  taken  place,  as  there  is  now  of  parents  to  the 
baptism  of  their  children,  whilst  the  small  minority  (the 
paedobaptists)  were  conscientiously  scruple  as  to  the  pro- 
fession and  character  of  those  whose  children  they  bap- 
tized : — it  is  not  difficult  to  conceive  how  many  perplex- 
ing cases,  and  puzzling  questions  must  have  arisen  from 
this  stale  of  things,  to  those  of  antipaedobaptist  dissen- 
ters from  the  established  church,  who  did  not  approve  of 
its  nationality,  and  separated  from  its  unavoidable  cor- 
ruption. And  these  cases  and  questions  the  paedobaptist 
minority  would  have  had  the  same  ground  for  pressing 
upon  them,  as  they  now  have  for  pressing  upon  paedobap- 
tists those  which  have  resulted  from  the  actually  existing 
circumstances.  But  it  would  have  been  as  unfair  in  the 
one  case  as  it  is  in  the  other.  The  great  matter  is,  to  as- 
certain scriptural  principles;  and  then,  when  any  case  of 
difficulty  is  suggested,  to  make  it  our  simple  inquiry,  What 
line  of  practice  will  be  most  consistent  with  those  princi- 
ples? Rven  if,  in  some  little  points,  we  should  continue 
at  a  loss,  we  are  not  to  renounce  a  practice  which  we  are 
satisfied  rests  on  the  broad  basis  of  scriptural  authority, 
merely  because,  in  consequence  of  abuses,  questions  can 
be  framed  by  a  subtle,  adversary,  which  may  carry  iu  them 
a  practical  difficulty. 

Simon  Magus  was  baptized  on  his  professing  the  faith, 
although  it  afterward  appeared  he  was  still  "in  the  gall 
of  bitterness,  and  bond  of  iniquity."  Suppose  that 
the  rebuke  of  Peter  had  taken   hold  of  his  conscience, 


154  SECTION    III. 

tha^  he  had  been  brought  to  true  repentance,  that  the 
"  thought  of  his  heart  had  been  forgiven  him,"  and  that 
he  had  renewed  his  profession,  in  sincerity  and  right  un- 
derstanding; would  it  have  been  necessary  to  baptize 
him  again?  or  would  not  a  believing  recognition  of  his 
former  baptism  have  been  enough?  —  When  our  baptist 
brethren  themselves  are  disappointed  in  the  profession  of 
any  one  whom  they  have  admitted  to  the  ordinance,  and 
are  constrained  to  disown  him,  and  to  separate  him  from 
their  fellowship  ; — if  their  dealings  with  him,  and  the  dis- 
cipline of  the  house  of  God,  should  subsequently  bring 
him  to  a  right  mind,  and  he  should  acknowledge  his 
former  profession  to  have  been  without  a  proper  spiritual 
understanding  and  feeling  of  the  truth  ; — would  they 
reckon  it  their  duty  to  baptize;  him  anew  ? — Even  if  the 
fault  had  in  part  lain  with  the  elder  by  whom  the  person 
had  been  baptized, — if  he  had  been  chargeable  with 
lightness  and  haste, — would  they  reckon  re-baptism  nec- 
essary ? — It  is  possible,  that  different  individuals  amongst 
them  may  be  disposed  to  answer  this  question  differently  ; — 
and,  in  like  manner,  it  is  possible,  that  some  paedobapiists 
may  hold  one  opinion,  and  some  another,  as  to  the  pro- 
priety of  re-baptizing  those  children,  when  they  come  to 
maturity  and  profess  the  faith,  whose  parents,  at  the  time 
of  their  baptism,  were  living  without  God  ; — (a  point  of 
fact,  however,  it  may  be  observed,  in  all  cases  of  delicate, 
in  many  of  difficult,  and  in  some  of  impossible  determina- 
tion :) — but  no  ground  of  objection  to  the  views  either  of 
baptists  or  of  psedobaptists  could  be  more  futile. — For  my 
own  part,  my  young  friends,  I  see  little  cause  for  your 
distressing  yourselves  upon  the  subject.  When  your  pa- 
rents had  the  ordinance  administered  to  you,  it  ou^ht  to 
have  been  understood  by  them.  If  they  understood  it 
not,  or  did  not  properly  consider  its  import,  and  its  con- 
nection with  their  duty,  and  did  not  act  according  to  the 
obligations  and  the  encouragements  recognized  in  it; 
they  were  to  be  blamed,  and  you  were"  to  be  pitied.  But 
the  meaning  of  the  ordinance  was  not  thereby  altered  ; 
and,  if  you  arc  now  satisfied  of  the  sc?'iptural  ground  for 
infant  baptism,  any  suspicion  or  conviction  of  the  want 
of  faith  in  your  parents  can  no  more  be  a  valid  reason  for 


section  in.  155 

your  being  re-baptized,  than  the  suspicion,  or  conviction, 
of  the  inadequacy  of  a  previous  profession,  would  be  a 
vaiid  reason  to  the  believer  in  adult  baptism  only,  for  re- 
baptizing  an  adult,  who  should  come  to  make  that  pro- 
fession in  earnest,  which  he  had  before  made  with  care- 
lessness or  insincerity.  In  either  case,  the  recognition 
of  the  ordinance,  with  a  right  understanding  and  an  hon- 
est heart,  should  be  considered  as  sufficient.  The  bap- 
tism of  children,  on  the  professed  faith  of  their  parents, 
stands,  in  this  respect,  on  precisely  the  same  footing,  as 
the  baptism  of  an  adult  upon  his  own  profession.  An 
adult  may  himself  be  baptized  on  a  profession  that  is 
hollow-hearted  and  thoughtless  ;  and  a  parent  may  have 
his  children  baptized  on  such  profession  : — both  the  bap- 
tized adult  and  the  parent  may  afterwards  be  brought  un- 
der the  saving  power  of  the  truth  : — and,  in  these  circum- 
stances, whatever  it  would  be  right  to  do  in  the  one  case, 
it  would  be  right  to  do  in  the  other.  If  it  would  be  right 
to  re-baptize  the  adult,  it  would  be  right  to  re-baptize  the 
children  of  the  parent;  if  no  necessity  would  be  felt  for 
this  in  the  case  of  the  adult,  neither  is  there  such  neces- 
sity in  the  case  of  the  children.  The  adult  and  the  pa- 
rent would  both  recognize  what  before  they  had  overlook- 
ed or  disregarded — the  spiritual  import  of  the  rite, — and 
show  the  sincerity  of  their  new  profession,  by  acting. ac- 
cording to  it  in  their  respective  circumstances.  And  the 
very  same  principle  extends  to  the  child  of  a  careless  pa- 
rent, when  that  child  is  brought  to  know  the  Lord,  and  to 
possess  the  blessings  which  the  ordinance  represents. 

3.  With  regard  to  the  duty  of  churches  in  reference  to 
the  children  of  the  members,  there  is  little  said  in  the 
scriptures,  and  I  shall  not  therefore  enlarge.  That 
they  ought  to  feel  an  interest  in  the  rising  generation, 
cannot  be  questioned.  The  interest  ought  to  be  lively 
and  tender.  But  the  different  ways  in  which  this  inter- 
est should  practically  express  itself,  are  not  authoritative- 
ly prescribed,  being,  like  some  other  matters,  left  to  dis- 
cretion. 

When  the  apostle,  in  his  epistles,  addressing  himself 
to  the  churches,  introduces  the  subject  of  the  instruction 
and  spiritual  care  of  children,  it  is  evident,  that  he  de- 
Tolves  the  important  charge,  not  upon  the  associated  body 


156  SECTION   III. 

of  believers,  but  on  the  parents  amongst  them  to  whom 
the  children  belonged.  The  very  address,  it  is  true,  to 
children^  as  connected  with  the  community  of  God's  peo- 
ple, testifies  the  interest  felt  in  them  by  the  apostle  him- 
self, and  contains  a  virtual  admonition  to  the  churches, 
to  take  care  that  they  were  not  neglected.  By  connect- 
ing this  with  the  immediately  subjoined  ch..rge  to  pa- 
rents, we  are  naturally  led  to  the  conclusion,  that  the 
principal  way  in  which  the  care  of  the  churches  for  the 
spiritual  interest  of  the  children  connected  with  them 
ought  to  show  itself,  is  their  seeing  to  it  that  the  parents 
discharge  their  duty  faitliiully.  The  parents  have,  by 
apostolic  authority,  as  well  as  by  the  dictate  of  nature, 
the  immediate  charge  of  the  children  ;  and  the  church, 
by  the  same  Divine  authority,  has  the  immediate  oversight 
of  the  parents.  The  discipline  of  the  churches  ought 
certainly  to  be  considered  as  extending  to  every  descrip- 
tion of  sin.  'J  ne  violation,  or  neglect,  of  the  parental 
trust,  is  a  sin,  of  which  cognizance  ought  to  be  taken,  as 
Well  as  of  others.  If  parents,  who  are  members  of  a 
church,  are  allowed  to  go  on  in  such  violation  and  neg- 
lect, the  church  is  chargeable  with  an  omission  of  duty. 
"  Bung  up  your  children  in  the  nurture  and  admonition 
of  the  Lord,"  is  as  plain  and  explicit  a  command,  as 
"Thou  shah  not  steal,'  or  "Thou  shalt  not  take  the 
name  of  the  Lord  thy  God  in  vain  "  The  violation  of 
the  one  may  not  be  of  so  easy  detection,  as  that  of  the 
others  There  may  even,  in  certain  cases,  be  circum- 
stances of  delicacy  and  difficulty,  that  require  any  cogniz- 
ance of  parental  conduct  to  be  gone  about  with  great 
prudence,  and  cautious  discrimination.  But  the  princi- 
ple of  discipline  is,  in  bo'h  cases,  the  same.  We  must 
not  all  »w  sin  to  be' committed,  and  persisted  in,  without 
endeavoring,  by  scriptural  means,  to  bring  the  offender  to 
repentance.  And,  surely,  there  is  no  sin  which  it  is  of 
more  consequence  to  have  corrected  by  repentance,  than 
one  wiiic'i  affects  the  best  interest  of  the  rising  generation, 
and  thus  tends  deeply  to  injure  the  prosperity  of  the 
church, an  I  the  cause  and  glory  of  Christ.  If  undmifulness 
to  p  rents,  on  the  part  of  children,  would  be  a  proper  sub- 
ject   of  ecclesiastical  reprehension,  so  surely  should  the 


SECTION    III. 


157 


neglect  of  children,  on  the  part  of  parents.     If  the  man 
who,  in  temporal   things,  "  provides  not  for  his  own,  and 
especially  for  those  of  his  own  house,"  is  to  be  treated  as 
one  who  "  has  denied  the  faith,  and  is  worse  than  an  in- 
fidel ;"     can    we   hesitate,  in  so   regarding  the  man,  who 
leaves  his  children  destitute,    as    far  as  his  influence    is 
concerned,  of  "the  meat  which  endureth  unto  life  eter- 
nal?"    No  parent  can  do  this,  that  deserves  the  name  of 
Christian  ;    and    no  such  parent,  therefore,   should   be  a 
member  of  any  Christian  church.     There  may  be  various 
degrees  of  the  sin  ;  and  each  case  must  be  dealt  with  ac- 
cording to   its  own  peculiar  circumstances.      But  I  am 
verily  persuaded,  there  is   "  utterly  a  fault   amongst  us," 
upon  this  subject.     The  pastors  of  the  churches  ought  to 
feel  it  their  duty,  in    public  and  in  private,  to  press  upon 
parents  ihe  fulfilment  of  their  trust,  and  upon  children  the 
improvement  of  their  privileges  ; — to  ascertain,  by  domi- 
ciliary visits,  the  state  of  domestic  instruction,  and,  with 
affectionate  fidelity,  to  commend  or  admonish  according- 
ly ; — and,   by  occasional  or  stated   meetings,  of  a  more 
public  kind, — of  the  children,   for  example,  in  different 
districts  of  local  residence,  to  stimulate  both  children  and 
parents,  and  provoke  the  one  and  the  other,  respectively, 
to  a  holy  emulation.     And,  in  the  use  of  all  such  means, 
the   deacons  and   members  of  churches   should  show  all 
possible  countenance  to  the  pastors,  aid   them  to  the  full 
extent  of  their  power,  and  "  by  love  serve  one  another." 

I  conclude  with  one  general  caulion. — Let  all  beware 
of  trusting,  in  any  measure,  for  their  salvation,  to  any 
outward  observance.  The  Jews,  who  trusted  and  gloried 
in  their  circumcision,  mistook  and  perverted  its  design, 
to  the  dishonor  of  Abraham,  and  of  the  God  of  Abraham, 
and  to  their  own  everlasting  perdition.  You  have  been 
baptized.  As  to  the  present  view  of  the  matter,  it  is  of  no 
consequence  whether  by  sprinkling  or  immersion,  wheth- 
er in  infancy  or  adult  years  :  if  you  fancy  yourselves  Chris- 
tians because  you  have  been  baptized,  you  are  in  the  same 
fatal  error  in  which  the  Jews  were,  who  imagined  them- 
selves the  children  of  Abraham  and  of  God,  because  they 
were  circumcised.  Be  not  deceived.  Those  Jews  per- 
ished without  remedy,  notwithstanding  their  circumcis* 
13 


158  SECTION  III. 

ion,  who  refused  to  "  submit  themselves  unto  the  right- 
eousness of  God,"  of  which,  when  properly  understood, 
it  was  the  sign  and  the  seal.  So  must  all,  without  reme- 
dy, perish,  notwithstanding  their  baptism  and  their  other 
outward  privileges,  who  are  not  "  born  again"  by  be- 
ing made  partakers  of  like  precious  faith  with  Abra- 
ham. Circumcision  could  not  save  the  one  ;  neither  can 
baptism  save  the  other.  Mere  natural  descent  from  A- 
braham  could  not  save  the  one  ;  neither  can  mere  natu- 
ral relation  to  godly  parents  save  the  other.  All  the  va- 
riety of  external  privilege  and  observance  could  not  save 
the  one; — outward  connection  with  the  purest  church  on 
earth,  and  the  most  punctilious  attendance  upon  all  its 
institutions,  cannot  save  the  other.  "  He  was  not  a  Jew 
who  was  one  outwardly,  neither  was  that  circumcision 
which  was  outward  in  the  flesh  ;  but  he  was  a  Jew  who 
was  one  inwardly,  and  circumcision  was  that  of  the 
heart,  in  the  spirit,  and  not  in  the  letter,  whose  praise  is 
not  of  men,  but  of  God."  He  is  not  a  Christian,  who  is 
one  outwardly  ;  neither  is  that  baptism  which  is  outward 
in  the  flesh  ;  but  he  is  a  Christian,  who  is  one  inwardly, 
and  baptism  is  that  of  the  heart,  in  the  spirit  and  not  in 
the  letter,  whose  piaise  is  not  of  men,  but  of  God.  "  In 
Christ  Jesus  neither  circumcision  availeth  any  thing,  no? 
uncircumcision,  but  a  new  creation."* 

*  Roro.  ii.  28,  29.    Gal,  vi.  15. 


HENRY'S     COMMENTARY, 

FOR    SALE     WHOLESALE    AND    RETAIL, 

BY 

P  E  I  R  C  E     AND     PARKER, 

Theological  Booksellers, 
NO    9,   CORNHILL,  BOSTON. 

The  Stereotype  Edition  of  "  An  Exposition  of  the 
Old  and  New  Testaments  :  wherein  each  chapter  is 
summed  up  in  its  contents  ;  the  sacred  text  inserted  at 
large,  in  distinct  paragraphs  ;  each  paragraph  reduced  to 
its  proper  heads  ;  the  sense  given,  and  largely  illustrated, 
with  Practical  Remarks  and  Observations.  By 
MATTHEW  HENRY.  A  new  edition  :  Edited  by  the 
Rev.  GeoR<i2  Burder,  and  the  Rev.  Joseph  Hughes, 
A.M.  With  the.  Life  of  the  Author;  By  the  !<  ev. 
Samuel  Palmer.  First  American  Edition  :  to  which  is 
prefixed  a  Preface,  by  Archibald  Alexander,  D.  D., 
Professor  of  Theology  in  the  Seminary  at  Princeton, N.J. 

The  type  upon  which  this  work  printed,  is  large,  clear, 
and  beautiful  ;  the  paper  is  white  and  good  :  and  the 
binding  neat  and  substantial. 

To  a  Family,  this  work  is  a  treasure.  Its  vivid  illus- 
trations and  expositions  of  the  sacred  word — the  strength 
and  genuine  piety  ol  its  sentiments,  un  alloy*  d  by  the 
asperities  of  sectarianism  and  polemical  discussion,  but 
devoted  to  truth  and  its  great  influences,  cannot  but 
have  a  highly  beneficial  effect  on  the  domestic  circle 
where  it  is  possessed  and  studied  ;  and  to  every  individu- 
al its  benefits  are  striking  and  obvious. 

The  Sabbath  School  Teacher  should  possess  it,  that 
he  may  come  to  his  pupils  prepared  to  give  them  an  in- 
sight into  the  meaning  of  the  Scriptures  which  they  com- 
mit to  memory.  Every  Young  Man  should  be  furnished 
with  it,  that  he  may  be  qualified  to  shed  an  enlightened 
and  moral  influence  around  him. 

Henry  is  already  introduced  into  the  libraries  of  nu- 
merous Sabbath  Schools,  and  has  been  purchased  by 
very  many  Sabbath  School  Teachers,  by  whom  it  is  found 
incalculably  beneficial  in  preparing  them  to  come  to  their 
pupils,  ready  to  give  clear  views  of  the  meaning  of  those 
portions  of  the  Scriptures  committed  to  memory  by  their 
charge. 


2 

Tt  is  a  remarkable  fact,  and  one  that  very  much  en* 
hances  the  value  of  the  work  to  Sabbath  School  Teach- 
ers, that  nearly  all  the  books  of  questions  and  Biblical 
Exercises  now  in  use  in  Sabbath  Schools,  follow  the  order 
and  train  of  thought  in  Henry's  Exposition. 

Every  Minister  should  be  furnished  with  it,  as  he  can 
draw  forth  more  copious  expositions  and  practical  instruc- 
tion,  than  from  any  other  -Commentary. 

The  Publishers  are  in  possession  of  Recommendations 
of  this  Exposition  from  a  large  number  of  distinguished 
clergymen  in  the  United  States.  The  following  vivid 
delineation  of  its  peculiar  qualities  is  from  the  pen  of 
the  author  oj  the  excellent  Preface — the  Rev.  Dr.  Alex- 
ander, of  Princeton,  N.  J. 

"A  characteristic  of  this  Exposition  of  a  more  impor- 
tant kind  than  any  that  has  been  mentioned,  is  the  fer- 
tility and  variety  of  good  sentiment,  manifest  throughout 
the  work.  The  mind  of  the  author  seems  not  only  to 
have  been  imbued  with  excellent  and  spiritual  ideas,  but 
to  have  teemed  with  them.  It  is  comparable  to  a  peren- 
nial fountain,  which  continually  sends  forth  streams  of 
living  water.  In  deriving  rich  instruction  and  consola- 
tion from  the  sacred  oracles,  adapted  to  all  the  various 
conditions  and  characters  of  men,  the  author  displays  a 
fecundity  of  thought,  and  an  ingenuity  in  making  the  ap- 
plication of  divine  truth,  which  strikes  us  with  admira- 
tion. The  resources  of  most  men  would  have  been  ex- 
hausted in  expounding  a  few  books  of  the  Bible  ;  after 
which  little  more  could  have  been  expected,  than  com- 
mon-place matter,  or  the  continual  recurrence  of  the  same 
ideas  :  but  the  riches  of  our  Expositor's  mind  seem  to 
have  been  inexhaustible.  He  comes  to  every  successive 
portion  of  the  sacred  Scriptures  with  a  fulness  and  fresh- 
ness of  matter,  and  with  a  variety  in  his  remarks,  which 
while  it  instructs,  at  the  same  time  refreshes  us.  Even 
in  his  exposition  of  those  books  which  are  very  similar 
in  their  contents,  as  the  Gospels  for  example,  we  still 
find  a  pleasing  variety  in  the  notes  of  the  commentator. 
It  is  difficult  to  conceive  how  one  man  should  have  been 
able  to  accomplish  such  a  work  without  any  falling  off 
in  the  style  of  execution." 


• 


